Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Greenhouse Gas Observatory Captures 'First Light'
mdsolar (1045926) writes with news that NASA's second attempt to launch a satellite to map carbon dioxide levels across the globe succeeded, and its instruments are operating properly. From the article: NASA's first spacecraft dedicated to studying Earth's atmospheric climate changing carbon dioxide levels and its carbon cycle has reached its final observing orbit and taken its first science measurements as the leader of the world's first constellation of Earth science satellites known as the International 'A-Train. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) is a research satellite tasked with collecting the first global measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) — the leading human-produced greenhouse gas and the principal human-produced driver of climate change. The 'first light' measurements were conducted on Aug. 6 as the observatory flew over central Papua New Guinea and confirmed the health of the science instrument.
when they dont get the results that they want the sat suddenly loses communications.....
The "first light" in the summary is just the initial measurements to confirm the health of the equipment. It's not capturing some cool phenomenon. This is apparently a term of art in astronomy, according to Wikipedia.
It's like saying "the satellite booted up for the first time." Good news, but I'm going to keep my pants on.
All this money wasted on actual measurements could have gone to generating computer models with baked in hockey sticks.
It's like saying "the satellite booted up for the first time." Good news, but I'm going to keep my pants on.
Thank you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1st attempt: launch failure when the payload fairing failed to separate
2nd attempt: launch delayed due to a faulty valve
Is someone trying to sabotage this mission?
First light is significantly more than bootup. After launch, typically at least a few days to weeks are spent doing initial power-on and checkout of various subsystems before collecting science or mission data. The initial health checks (monitoring component temperatures, voltages, currents, communications, powering on subsystems in order, etc) are much more analogous to booting up.
Once initial checks are complete, then the instrument is commanded to collect real data. That is first light. For any satellite like this which is years in the making, first light is most definitely a "cool" milestone.
Source: I work on (unrelated to this) remote sensing satellite systems and have supported at least 8 launches / early orbit testing phases over the years.
Close.
It's more like saying "now that it's been booted, and through all of its other tests, the instruments have collected their first data and been confirmed as working".
This is the first end-to-end functionality test.
CO2 levels have continued to rise rapidly over the last decade, even as actual warming has kind of flatlined,
If CO2 were a leading cause of warming, why would the temperatures not be spiking along with CO2 levels?
It's great that we are tracking CO2, but the human race seems overall far too concerned with one aspect of warming that seems not to be playing out as a dangerous factor.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
has gone up since Sputnik.
Right now, most of the world's CO2 emissions numbers are based on what gov claim that their nation consumed in coal, oil, and nat gas. Yet, it does not take into account issues such as inefficiencies, etc. Most of the numbers dealing with 3rd world and even some of the western nations are really wrong.
With this, it will show the TRUE flow of CO2 outward, as well as into, of nations.
Sadly, it will also become controversially once the far left realizes that America is NOT the massive polluter that they claim, but that instead, it will turn out that most of the 3rd world nations are some of the WORST.
BUT, where the real issue will come in, is once it shows that China produces more than 40% of the CO2, and not the 33% that is expected.
At that point, does the world finally point to China and say enough is enough, or will the far left still insist on giving them a MASSIVE out?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Thank you for the intelligent comment. I worked on the original instrument design at Hamilton Sundstrand over 10 years ago, and it was heartbreaking to learn of the original launch failure. A lot of us suspected but had no evidence that the failure was someone's desired outcome... now that OCO-2 is on station and collecting data we finally feel a sense of accomplishment.
And we'll not only learn who's contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, (and when, and where) but also what's consuming it, so we can not only reduce emissions but we can also sequester it better (e.g., by planting forests in the right places).
I guarantee we'll learn something we didn't expect. And scientists, being scientists, will embrace the surprises rather than reject them. This instrument will help us understand the problem better, produce better model forecasts, and plan better solutions.
I can see the fnords!
At that point, does the world finally point to China and say enough is enough, or will the far left still insist on giving them a MASSIVE out?
That 'out' is the best thing that we can do. If you look carefully, China is moving as fast as it can towards fast breeder reactors, hydro, etc. They're cheaper in the long-run than carbon-based energy sources and much better for their air (and ours) but the capital expense is really high. Look, nobody in Beijing is happy about breathing diesel soup for breakfast.
If you want to reduce China's available capital, you're just going to delay their cleaning up their act. Even the IPCC models count on economic development as a major source of reduction. All the "Scare Numbers" that politicians quote are based on IPCC's worst estimates based on a throttling of economic development.
Economies are dynamic, not static (sorry, Mr. Keynes, your fantasy failed). China has learned the foibles of central-planning - we should not do worse than they did.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) is a research satellite tasked with generating massive amounts of data to support the leftist global warming agenda."
You cannot put a leftist agenda-driven organization like NASA or NOAA in charge of collecting data. The confirmation bias is built into that arrangement.
The launch of the spacecraft is effectively the start of 'Phase E' (operations) for the instruments ... but there's a lot of things that still have to happen:
They refer to this whole period as "commissioning". They're not always run in order (eg, for the missions to the outer planets, which might take *years* to get to, they try to check on the health of the instruments before they get to the planet). For some instruments, it might take years to validate the data.
There's also typically a press conference with the "first release" of the data, after the first calibration is done, but that's more to do with scientists on the ground than the spacecraft itself.
disclaimer : I work for a NASA center, but I don't deal with spacecraft directly; I just manage the data after it's downlinked & processed.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
I release as much CO2 as I can.
You might be misunderstanding the difference between short-term forecasts and longterm projections. I know I failed to understand the scientific nuance until recently.
You see, "global average temperatures are going to rise X by 2100" is a projection. It's based on pretty basic thermodynamics (ie. this much carbon increases the greenhouse effect by such-and-such). This science, because it's so basic, is pretty solid.
At the same time "global average temperatures are going to rise by Y by 2025" is a forecast. It's based on computer models that are perpetually being refined to more accurately predict the short-term trend. Most recently, these models were found to be missing el-nino/la-nina cycles which is why they have lagged over the last decade.
This is why people get confused when I tell them the science of global warming is actually extremely basic. It's just thermodynamics, but then they confuse projections with forecasts and wonder why the models haven't accurately predicted the last 10 years. It's the "weather versus climate" debate all over again.
Why do scientists even publish forecasts when they know they are still very much a work in progress? Politics. You see, your local representative couldn't give a damn if your children's children suffer from today's lack of leadership a century from now. So scientists are tasked to find out what the short-term effect will be on the constituency to inform politicians whether or not they might suffer some voter backlash on the issue.
In other words, our children's children are doomed to shell out billions to fix this mess.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
Thank you for the work. I worked on Mars Global Surveyor and Suspect that I had the same feeling when we lost MGS
And yeah, when OCS's shroud failed to release, I was miffed, but far more miffed when they got the next contract for OCO2. Thank god that it was turned over to ULA. Oddly, not sure if you have noticed, but 100% of OCS's failures were earth sats. That has always struck me as interesting.
But, I suspect that when the initial batch of numbers come from OCO2, that it is going to drive a lot of politicians crazy. We continue to focus just on America, when I THINK that we contribute only about 13-15% of total. The idea that so many focus on stopping America, while ignoring China and their constant growth in CO2 is just amazing to me. In fact, it is scary. There is a real lack of logic by both the far right and left WRT to this issue and others like it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No, China is NOT moving as fast as possible. They could stop producing new coal plants and buy nuke plants that are produced in America. However, that is EXACTLY what they are avoiding. Chinese leaders do NOT care about the lead, mercury, CO2, etc that they dump into the air and water. What they care about is holding on to power, while winning the cold war that they have with the west.
China claimed that they were going to spend 100's of billions on doing Solar and Wind for China, BUT, for the amount that they put in, the Chinese gov would have been paying 10x what America paid for our solar/wind. Basically, that money went not into developing China's AE programs, but about destroying companies in Germany, Japan, and America.
We NEVER should have given them a single thing about thorium plants. That will come back to haunt us.
And as to the Chinese economics, they are still a centrally planned system. The only parts that are really free market are companies that export to the west. However, to work there, you have to have gov. permission. Otherwise, the gov still tells you where you will work and what you will earn.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And, when the guilty (China, India) are identified, what would be your plan? Talk them to death? (Obama) Nuke them? (Bush) Recognize Hamas? (Carter)
The problem is that China and India will tell the west to fuck off, pleading poverty. So, do the western democracies destroy their own economies and national defences pursuing policies that will make not one whit of difference when China and India build fifty coal plants per year? Please enlighten us poor, benighted proles.
Sadly, it will also become controversially once the far left realizes that America is NOT the massive polluter that they claim, but that instead, it will turn out that most of the 3rd world nations are some of the WORST.
You seem to be assuming something that couldn't be measured till now. Maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong. BUT you're probably not even framing the question right. If American companies are contracting 3rd world nations to make products or product components, that are then consumed in America, then that CO2 should rightly be assigned to America, not the 3rd world countries.
That's not "a massive out". That's just rather more sophisticated thinking.
Actually, with america not able to directly control what a nation does, it is neither fair nor sophisticated. In fact, it is akin to telling a rape victim that s?he owes their rapist for services rendered.
Instead, we should put an increasing tax on all goods based on where the parts come from. In addition, the normalization should be co2 / $GDP. With this approach nations like India which actually has a low emission / $GDP will have a lower to none existent tax, while nations / states such as China, or wyoming , america, will have high tax unless they change their way.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You might want to read the science on that skippy, the claim is that the oceans are ABSORBING HEAT.
This is exactly why the global warming debate is so absurd, the people who claim they are on the science are not using science, but fear and calling that science.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So when they see CO2 rise, how do they know it's due to "human-produced greenhouse gas" vs. natural events? It won't matter because the leftist, controlling gov't is out to put more restrictions on freedoms, not prove any science. And who's to say that the temperatures that we see today are the "norm", or are too hot, or too cool? Like most things, it's all about the money, just follow the trail. Either it's "researchers" looking for more funding dollars, or the gov't looking to tax something so it can get more money. Pretty clear really.
And heaven forbid if the CO2 fall. They've already tried to "explain" the colder temperature due to something about the oceans absorbing gasses.
In fact, it is akin to telling a rape victim that s?he owes their rapist for services rendered.
Huh? Consumers are choosing to consume. The companies that outsource to other countries are doing so knowingly. Increased CO2 is an inevitable outcome. How is that in any way like rape?
Instead, we should put an increasing tax on all goods based on where the parts come from. In addition, the normalization should be co2 / $GDP.
So richer countries are allowed to pollute more than poorer countries? How very unfair.
Right now, most of the world's CO2 emissions numbers are based on what gov claim that their nation consumed in coal, oil, and nat gas. Yet, it does not take into account issues such as inefficiencies, etc. Most of the numbers dealing with 3rd world and even some of the western nations are really wrong.
Well, no.
The emissions numbers are based on two powerful mathematical and physical principles known as "double entry bookeeping" and "consevation of mass-energy". Any "inefficiencies" would result in the emission of less CO2
Watch this Heartland Institute video