Slashdot Mirror
ESA Cryosat Launch Reported Failure
hptux06 writes "Earlier today the ESA lauched their "Cryosat" satellite, designed to monitor ice levels across the Arctic/Antarctic. It's being reported a failure, disappearing 90 minutes after the launch. It cost £90M (160M US$) to build, and was supposed to spend three years determining the effects of global warming." From the article: "The satellite rode into space on a Rockot vehicle, a converted SS-19 intercontinental ballistic missile. The rocket, which in the Cold War would have been armed with nuclear weapons, had been modified for peaceful space duties with the addition of a Breeze-KM upper stage. Dr Matthias Oehm, chief executive officer of Eurockot, said they had not received the expected signals from either the spacecraft or the upper stage of the rocket that should have injected it into orbit. "
But a lot more likely that there was a faulty O-ring or something.
It was an old surplus ICBM they were using to launch it. ICBMs are build with the hope that your opponent will see how many you have and they'll never get used. In the event that they are used, you'll be launching so many that it won't matter if some don't make the trip. Add to that the decades of storage. Is it any suprise that when some are used for other purposes they fail?
t's not beyond the realms of possibility that it was sabotaged by those with an interest in the continued used of fossil fuels
Well, then it's also not beyond the realms of possibility that there was no launch, and that they faked the whole thing so they could say that it was sabotaged by those with an interest in the continued use of fossil fuels.
You know, like the people that make rocket fuel.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Other countries are going ahead with the Kyoto Protocol, so America's economic success isn't realy part of it. And there is lots of lots of data that points towards human-induced global warming, it's pretty hard to deny anymore.
And aside from that, if what humans are doing to the environment isn't responsible for the shrinking ice caps of Earth, then that means we should be free to spew out whatever crap we want into the environment without any concern for more basic things like air quality, etc.
Stupid leftisft thinking indeed, because of course, concern about the environment is purely a "leftist" issue.
Because it's not so much a per country-, but a per capita thing. Yes, China might eventually emmitt more than the US. However, like India, they have about four times the population. So when they're on par with the US, then it would still take about four Chinese to produce the same amount of carbon dioxide as one person in the US causes. At the moment, it takes about 20 Indians, so despite their bigger population it will take a while for them to catch up, I guess.
There is a certain correlation between energy consumption and living standard. That doesn't mean it's proportional, though. Much can be saved by increasing efficiency -- better insulation for houses, cars with better milage, modern power plants, that kind of stuff. Still, to a certain degree that correlation is undeniable, and when we in the rich countries say we want to keep our wasteful lifestyles unless the poorer countries reduce their energy consumption, too, then we're saying they're not entitled to a higher living standard than they have today. Since we caused the mess in the first place, I have a bit of a problem with that attitude.
There is no good reason, and that is why Kyoto is flawed. I do have to commend Europe for their work with the environment, but once they play favorites, they lost me on wanting such a treaty for the US.
Try to look at it from our (I'm in Europe) perspective. The science is pretty solid, our climate is changing. Even if there were doubts -- and there aren't any to be taken seriously -- considering what is at risk, we should play it safe. So we try to reduce our energy consumption, and carbon dioxide emmissions in general. But even if Kyoto meets its target, the reductions will be less than the increased output of the US in the same timeframe. We read about the outrage at US gas stations because you now have to pay $3 per gallon. We pay twice as much, so people buy efficient cars.
You use a quarter of the world's oil production, and you could do with much less if there were some decent incentives for efficiency, without lowering your living standard one bit. Instead you point at poor countries where people use a fraction of what we use in our countries before we even have lunch, and claim it's unfair that they don't have to reduce their output. Those are countries where the average person makes much, much less than we make, so if $3 per gallon seems like much for somebody in the US, you can imagine what it means to them even if they would only have to pay the $2 a gallon costs to produce at today's oil prices. Reducing consumption also means less of an impact of higher oil prices due to growing global demand -- do you understand why some see the US as somewhat unfavorable when they read arguments like yours?