Subscription Center
Feb 24, 2009 09:45 AM | 5
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), NASA’s satellite to track CO2 emissions on Earth, failed to reach orbit after blasting off early this morning, crashing in the waters off of Antarctica and dashing hopes for the $278-million mission.
The payload fairing—a shroud that covered the OCO to protect it during its trip through the atmosphere—failed to separate from the Taurus XL booster rocket carrying the satellite after it took off from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at 1:55 A.M. Pacific time (4:55 A.M. Eastern time), NASA said.
“The satellite reentered the atmosphere and fell into the ocean just short of Antarctica,” Alan Buis, a spokesperson for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, tells us. “The mission is lost.
“Obviously we’re all very disappointed,” Buis added. “It’s a huge disappointment for the whole team.”
Buis said the satellite would have broken apart when it hit the ocean, making it unsalvageable. NASA will study whether it will develop another OCO, he said.
The OCO would have helped scientists monitor global warming by measuring how much carbon dioxide was in a given part of the atmosphere and where it was being absorbed. Japan successfully launched a similar satellite last month. About 100 ground stations—plus high-flying aircraft—now monitor CO2. All of that information, however, would have been eclipsed by each 16-day orbit of OCO.
"With the launch of OCO, scientists will be able to study CO2 concentration from the surface of the Earth to the top of the atmosphere," Eric Ianson, OCO science program executive at NASA, told ScientificAmerican.com earlier this week. "Its high-resolution measurements will provide a more complete picture of human and natural sources of CO2 at the local and regional scale."
Evidently, the flubbed launch is not one of the nine ways NASA can tackle climate change.
OCO liftoff/NASA TV
Tags:
Orbiting Carbon Observatory,
NASA,
carbon dioxide,
global warming,
greenhouse gas
More News Blog:
Next: Calcium might fight cancer
Previous: Modern wars fought mostly in biodiversity "hot spots"
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jul 14 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
5 Comments
Add CommentI just read about this yesterday and worried that something would go wrong with it. It is almost as if there is a conspiracy to block data about the true nature of our climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn another note, I have to question the wisdom of spending 300 million dollars on projects that fail. The Hubble was one where the investment paid off, but the recent history of failed missions is troubling. Would the money be better spent developing solutions to the problems we already know exist rather than trying to better define the problems? What would that 300 million dollars have done toward a smart energy grid?
Jorgie, ground-based data are geographically biased. A satellite cruising above the atmosphere doesn't care about land-sea boundaries, weather, political boundaries, no-fly zones, etc. Therefore, except for a few manageable variables like stratospheric clouds depending on land-sea boundaries, the data from OCO was going to be highly detailed and geographically unbiased, allowing comparisons of point sources, non-point sources, and many other analyses. 300 million dollars is one dollar per citizen, for several years of data. It was worth the risk, I think. We are too big a nation to spend all our money in one place, no matter how important. I think a smart energy grid is important, but we have to allow scientists to follow where inquiry leads...Who knows, analysis of OCO data might have lead to smarter use of fossil fuels, perhaps a better knowledge of how fuel mix at night should compare to fuel mix during the day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course NASA doesn't say "Hey, let's spend $300M on a project that will fail." What a straw man you have built. NASA spends $3B on 10 projects, some of which fail, unexpectedly, others which pay back in spades.
"Would the money be better spent developing solutions to the problems we already know exist rather than trying to better define the problems?" There are still some people out there that would like more convincing data and analysis; this was going to be something, either documenting irrefutible evidence of anthropogenic climate change, or pinpointing the alien volcano-monsters that must otherwise be changing the climate. We obviously don't yet have the political will fully to "develop solutions to the problems we already know exist," so why begrudge the scientists who are making surer inferences? Don't confuse dollar amounts with a zero-sum game. NASA didn't take $300M and drop it into the sea. The money itself went to people and corporations that can turn around and follow other pursuits, such as the smart grid issue. Some of the money, yes, went to food and fuel, but much of it was an investment in the infrastructure of innovation that will lead to a smart grid.
Also, should we be a kill-joy and tell every artist, every writer, every house-painter, every cat-sitter, every movie-maker, every english-major, every golfer, and every star-gazer: "Don't you think your time would be better spent working on the smart grid?" Yes we waste, and we should waste less, but there is no one pursuit to satisfy 300 million people.
Regarding the true monetary loss: Would it be feasible to make a second copy of the satellite? How much would that cost?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlong a different line @Jorgie: At least some Hubble results have been hyped to make the project look more successful than it is. Results apparently could be reproduced at earth-based observatories.
prevention is better than cure...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFollow Quran the final devine revelation and save humanity.
spread peace not atom bombs and missles..
i live in Pakistan and being a true muslim i say take away these atom bombs from pakistan and feed the poor of pakistan and india..
because of the rivalry between pakistan and india; there are approximately 400 million people living very poor life that they can't even meet the basic requirements of human. Muslims are not meant to kill but to spread peace.
Islam never spread on the force of swords instead it was the best behaviour of muslims of that time which gave them the rulling of about half the world.
www.QuranEnglish.com (complete 114 chapters of Quran with english translation available).
THOSE WHO SAY LIFE IS A WORK OF CHANCE PLEASE SEE THE CLEAR TRUTH HERE
http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_video_index.php
and watch
1 Miracle of human creation
2 Miracle of the eye
3 Miracle in the design of cell
4 Miracle of atom
5 Immune system
6 Respiratory system
7 Blue planet earth
8 creation of universe
9 Miracle in the seed.
10 perished nations.
Roman candle technolagy is very if'y. Failures are common. Too many critical parts. A new space propulsion system is needed, and might be developed with $300 million or maybe a lot less, if NASA is kept out of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe object of government agencies is to spend money and maybe get useful results. A truspace propulsion system would put NASA out of business as a launch organization as any place large enough for a helo pad would safice, with as much danger as a local airport. Expensive as a like size transport aircraft.