NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory Mission Fails

jw3 writes "The NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory scheduled for launch today has failed its mission: the payload fairing failed to separate and the launch managers declared a contingency. George Diller, NASA launch commentator, said, 'It either did not separate or did not separate in the way that it should, but at any rate we're still trying to evaluate exactly what the status of the spacecraft is at this point.'" Update: 02/24 14:17 GMT by T : Reader fadethepolice points out a Reuters report which says that the craft crashed into the ocean just short of Antarctica.

Comments

Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

is a hoax, and the rocket knows it was just wasting time and money. It threw the launch.

Evaluating the status?

[elrous0]

Without a full investigation, I'd hypothesize tha the status is "laying in many pieces on the ice somewhere in Antarctica."

Re:Evaluating the status?

[ruin20]

Well that's what they get for trying to launch a satellite with a Taurus. I had one back in the late ninties and the tranny on them was completely worthless. It should come as no surprise that, just when you needed, a Ford breaks down.

Re:Evaluating the status?

[MikeBabcock]

In other news, the Antarctic research station isn't responding :-)

What's the contingency for these missions?

[jollyreaper]

I know with the Mars rovers the cost of a second rover was small change compared to the development cost of the original. The launch vehicle is expensive, of course, but it was considered cheaper to launch two missions and hope one succeeded than launching one that could fail and mean all the money was wasted.

What sort of contingency do they have for sats like this? Do they just fabricate another one and try again in a year or two?

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[confused one]

Contingency? We don't have no contingency. Seriously though: looks like the only options are to either hope someone else's similar but not quite equivalent satellite generates data they can use; or, spend the money to build and launch a replacement. By the way, they spent 7 years building, testing and waiting for launch, not 2.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[Paranatural]

Yes, but even before they launched, the builders were saying how much easier it would be to build a second one, now that all the design work was done and they have experience putting it together. They could probably create it all over again (comparatively) cheaply.

On second thought, maybe they should tack on a year for design refinements and take a look at that whole separation module thingy.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[kestasjk]

On second thought, maybe they should tack on a year for design refinements and take a look at that whole separation module thingy.

The team that designed the satellite didn't design the rocket. The rocket was a "Taurus XL", built by a different team to the OCO team (not even by NASA).

I imagine less than 7 years went into the rocket's design, and that it cost much less than $270 million, so I would guess the team behind the satellite would be pretty damn pissed. (I wonder if they insure it etc, and what sort of rates they have to pay to do so)

At any rate it's a real tragedy for everyone; knowing much more about where CO2 comes from and goes would have been a huge leap forward for the study of global warming.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[Guysmiley777]

The main difference is that Mars has historically been very unfriendly to probes (both surface and orbital). Low Earth orbit we have a much better handle on, you can generally assume that launches will succeed.

Of course the Taurus XL launch vehicle hasn't been an overwhelming success, it's 6 for 8 now... Though when the failure comes from payload or fairing separation you'll get people pointing fingers at each other as to what caused the problem. From what I can see the actual rocket stages all performed correctly.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[Civil_Disobedient]

the builders were saying how much easier it would be to build a second one, now that all the design work was done and they have experience putting it together

First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? -S.R. Hadden

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[bughunter]

I worked on the instrument team for OCO from 1999-2004, and on similar instruments in the past. Yes, it is much easier to build another, but unfortunately, it's not really that much cheaper from a mission point of view, since the launch vehicle and satellite buss are a large fraction of the cost, and most of that is already incremental cost, not NRE. Usually, NASA considers the risk of launch failure and requires contractors to keep records adequate to build another on an incremental basis.

One other cost factor is the ground segment -- the mission operations center and the data analysis facility. As I understood it five years ago, there were plans to build a rather large data center to crunch all the spectrometry data that OCO would have sent down. That didn't get sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

And while I don't think anyone is "pissed," the mission and instrument teams are probably quite dejected. Especially Dr. Crisp, the principal investigator. That was his baby.

There is a good chance that NASA may still "do it over" however, 1) because of the reduced "incremental" cost, and 2) to support Pres. Obama's environmental policy.

Fantastic!

[The Fun Guy]

The telemetry from the satellite is reading zero across the board. That must mean there's no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere anymore. Now we don't have to worry about global warming - fantastic!

Good work, NASA. I knew we could get this climate change thing cleared up once we had better data.

Taurus XL

[JumboMessiah]

Was the decision to use the Taurus to keep launch costs down? Launching from Vandenberg, I'm assuming they were aiming for a steep inclination. Just wondering if anyone knows why they didn't go with a Delta II....

Re:Taurus XL

[drinkypoo]

Seems more like they used a Taurus. If one of those gets where it's going, it's a miracle.

well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

This probe would have provided millions of carbon dioxide measurements a day* for the entire atmospheric column (rather than the hundreds of measurements, usually only at ground level that we currently get from our fixed sensors). Considering the importance these measurements would be in helping us predict climate change, I think we (the human race) has just suffered a serious setback.

[There was a scene in the movie "Silent Running" where the command is given to jettison and detonate the last remaining biospheres. The commander says "may god have mercy on us". I'm beginning to feel that way now.]

*it was going to take readings at 56,000 locations a day but at each location would record carbon dioxide concentrations for the entire air column.

Re:well we're f*****d

[tpheiska]

So we lost a machine that would have given us concrete evidence on the *possible* increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. And now NASA lost it even though they haven't lost an earth orbit bound spacecraft in a while. Let me get my tinfoil hat.

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Yes CO2 is barely anything compared to water vapor (I'll take your word on that, I don't know). And compared to Nitrogen or even Oxygen it's less than nothing.

However perhaps it is a particularly effective greenhouse gas compared to water vapor, like maybe the how difference between Uranium 235 and Uranium 238 is the difference between a nice metal suitable for armor piercing shells and a nuclear bomb. So when a climatologist tells me it's a critical piece of understanding the climate, I tend to believe them. I'm not a climatologist, are you?

The reason why I believe this is important is because the vast majority of climatologists and other scientists in allied fields tell me so. Why do I believe them? Because they went TO SCHOOL and STUDIED HARD and EARNED LOTS OF DEGREES that I was either unwilling or unable to do. Still I know some of them and, unlike many right wingers, I do not think they are part of some vast conspiracy that only seems to accept smart people as members (or maybe I do!). Even if I didn't know any of them personally, I put my trust in scientists as a profession: when you think of everything SCIENCE has given us; medical tech, aerospace, agriculture, nukes, yes even the computer you're using, they've got a pretty good record.

You know, I don't know if you're a right winger but I've noticed more and more of them suffering from COGNITIVE DISSONANCE as they find their most highly cherished held beliefs overthrown by the facts. Evolution? Well all Biologists must be wrong! The age of the earth being older than 6000 years? Well all Geologists, Astronomers and Physicists must be wrong! Global Warming? Climatologists, Oceanographers... Hell all of science must be wrong! They're all in cohoots to raise my taxes!

Re:well we're f*****d

[Chris Burke]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But compared to water vapor, you know, clouds. It's barely anything.

Yeah, but while the levels of CO2 can and have increased dramatically, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is limited to the saturation point and is self-regulating. You know, rain.

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Look, even though I've researched these issues (much?) more than the average person, once again, I'm not a climatologist. At some point, everyone in this world has to trust other people, there is simply too much information for one person to understand it all (the last person in history who is thought to have known everything at the time was Sir Francis Bacon).

So, who do you trust? Well if I have a serious illness, I'll trust my doctor/surgeon. If I'm on a plane I'll trust my pilot. If I'm a soldier in a war I'll trust my general. If I'm a general (who wants to make sure the bombs will go off) I'll trust my scientists. Basically, the vast consensus of scientists working in climatology think we're headed for (man-made) trouble.

  If a climatologist told me that my computer processor was inefficient I might disregard him, or if my neurologist told me that concrete was a poorer building material than steel I might ignore him. But these are people who've specialized and studied a long time in their respective fields. While science has certainly gone into blind alleys, it has, over time proven its accuracy in describing the real world. (Read about life in the middle ages).

I don't know anything about your anecdote regarding Greenland, the only one I know is that the Vikings named Greenland "Green" land to fool people to think it was valuable (when they really colonized Iceland). Still I hope you don't base your life around anecdotes; for example I hope you don't believe in not vaccinating your kids because you've heard it causes autism.

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

You're absolutely right when you say that Science isn't about voting on truth. Best example I can think of plate tectonics; the guy who promoted that was derided as a loony because "continents don't move".

But then a funny thing happened. More and more data came up to support him. First the fossil similarities on both sides of the atlantic. Then the mid atlantic ridge. Finally, if it wasn't already proven in almost all geologists minds, they found the active spreading.

That's the thing about science. Sure you might be the underdog but the "truth" will win out in the end. It has to, because nature is always right. The problem with this Spencer guy (sorry, never heard of him) is that with more and more data being collected (alas not from the OCO) there are more and more climatologists believing in man-made warming. No good scientist will say they are 100% certain (look at the ICC report, it is all in probabilities) on such a complex issue but it is apparent that the evidence is getting stronger not weaker. Again, maybe Spencer is a genius but he'll have to prove it. If he does, he'll be famous like the guy who came up with tectonic drift ("I" don't know his name but I'm sure just about every geologist does!).

Actually it's funny that you mentioned Spencer. I followed the Wikipedia link and briefly skimmed his bio. You mention that the last two paragraphs of what I wrote is "Not relevant". After reading Spencer's bio it's so relevant it's funny! I was going to say that everybody has an opinion and sometimes that opinion can't be changed by facts no matter how strong. That's called BELIEF. Without reading Spencer's bio an inch further, I'll bet you he's some sort of fundamentalist or born again Christian. Why? Because he's got all this evidence staring him in the face on global warming (and supposedly evolution) and he draws the opposite conclusion that 95% of his colleagues do. YOU CAN'T CHANGE SOMEONE'S MIND IF IT'S CLOSED. So I have to thank you, you've proved that my last two paragraphs are Very relevant!

NASA on Twitter

[opec]

It's kind of weird, interesting, and depressing to watch this history be made through NASA's Twitter updates:

• The countdown has begun in California for the launch of NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory in less than 1 hour. The stars are out tonight!
• Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) update: Weather is perfect for launch in less than half an hour.
• OCO launch update: Liftoff is now set for 4:55 EST. Catch it on www.nasa.gov/ntv
• OCO launch update: WE HAVE LIFTOFF!
• OCO launch update: We have Stage 3 ignition. The mission is off to a great start!
• OCO launch update: We have a mission failure. Press briefing to be held at Vandenberg in approximately 2 hours.

Oh dear.

[apodyopsis]

the key satillite designed to monitor global warming and CO2 pollution and hence get scientific data that might affect global business and industrial nations has just nose dived into Antartica?

lets make sure nobody tells the conspiracy theorists, they could have a ball with this one.

Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[ruin20]

So this means that in the battle against climate change, the biggest shot NASA has taken thus far is a rocket attack on Antarctica.

Re:Rebuild?

[jnik]

Satellites are usually built in pairs just in case one of them fails during launch
Not usually...at least none of the NASA or AFRL projects I'm familiar with has a full-build spare. It's not entirely uncommon to have a second of some of the instruments, and it's pretty common to have enough spare parts to build another copy of an instrument. (Much easier to buy a couple of spares up front rather than wait around if someone screws something up.) Then testing and integration can go much more quickly and cheaply, having done it once before. It still can take awhile, though.

(Incidentally, the title and summary for this article suck...the OCO didn't fail, it was lost in a launch failure, and it didn't "fail its mission," it didn't get a chance to start. That's like saying your car broke down because someone ran a red light and T-boned it. No offense intended to the launch team.)

Re:Rebuild?

[carambola5]

It depends on the project, but space projects - even small payloads aboard larger craft - are invariably built in sets. Unfortunately, you usually can't just launch one of the "spares" because they're not actually spares. They are identical units that are tested near (or beyond) the point of failure to predict lifetime of the one flight unit. These are called qualification units, or "Qual Units." Occasionally, you'll also have one or two ground-based units (ground-support equipment, or GSEs) that mimic the project's function but aren't necessarily built with space in mind... for example, expensive weight-saving milling operations have been omitted or cheaper wiring (PVC) may have replaced expensive space-worthy wiring (Teflon).

Re:heh

[TempeTerra]

It's a particular capitalisation style. To shamelessly repeat someone else's response from last time this came up: the BBC style does not capitalise acronyms which are pronounced as words. [radar] would not be capitalised because it's a pronounced word which happens to be an acronym. [Nasa] has the first letter capitalised because it's used as a proper noun. [BBC] is all capitalised because it's an acronym pronounced B.B.C.

Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[ashitaka]

An ICBM is what happens when you take a shit outside in Antarctica.

Re:it's just you

[wisebabo]

I will follow my doctor's advice (or the majority if my second opinion doesn't agree)

I will follow the instructions of the cabin attendants (while kissing my butt goodbye)

I will follow their instructions unless it looks like suicide (no kamikaze pilot I). Basically I'm fucked

I will follow what the climatologists say is the rational way to get out or AMELIORATE this problem. I would most certainly HELP THEM GET MORE DATA (which is why losing the OSO pisses me off). If I'm a snowflake, I guess I'll just melt.

What exactly are you suggesting I do? We (should?) play the cards we are dealt with in the best (most rational) way we can.