LakeEffectKing Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_GLORY_SATELLITE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-04-07-48-04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 What a bummer. Same failure as OCO apparently, launch shroud failed to separate. Hopefully they'll agree to build a Glory 2 like OCO 2. Someone needs to have a talking to with Orbital about these failures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 The weather gods are toying with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Hmm Well... they did get Cryosat 2 into orbit. After loosing Cryosat 1 According to the notes, they've had 6 successes, 3 failures with the Taurus XL rocket including loosing the 2009 Orbiting Carbon Observatory. Apparently the launch was fine, the satellite failed to separate from the booster rocket... and plunged back to earth. It sounds to me like NASA needs to get back to the basics. 30 years ago, NASA used to have triple redundancy on all mission critical equipment. We have 2 space probes launched in 1977 that are still active 33 years later. Hmm, they predate the Apple II, IBM PC, and Commodore PET. Most of the Earth Orbiting Satellites have something like a 5 year mission plan. One thing we desperately need is better continuity of measurements which means getting equipment that can give us reliable information over a 20+ year period. Shouldn't some of these "science" missions be sent to the International Space Station whenever they are in a compatible orbit, and thus a $500 million piece of equipment can be maintained and updated. One of the other things that NASA needs to do is to work harder on getting the information out to the people in an understandable format. I.E. The Cryosat-2 has been in orbit for a year now, yet we have yet to get any good ice estimates back. Average Sea Level Information is now obsolete. It is difficult to find continuous data sets on anything, and many of the images that NASA displays are single anecdotes. Obviously some of the images presented to the public are "cleaned up" (whether or not this is good). But, if we are spending $500 million on a satellite... perhaps 1% of that should go back to connecting, analysing, and disseminating public information. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that a third climate satellite has been lost. Hopefully more effort will be put into building functional equipment, rather than just shiny new stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 If NASA spent more time disseminating its results, which all confirm rapid AGW, to the public (the results are published in peer-reviewed journals) they would probably be accused of advocacy and have their funding cut further. NASA conducts the observations and then lets other scientists take the political heat for publishing the findings. Just look at all the heat NOAA takes for simply releasing an accurate index of global temperatures to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 If NASA spent more time disseminating its results, which all confirm rapid AGW, to the public (the results are published in peer-reviewed journals) they would probably be accused of advocacy and have their funding cut further. NASA conducts the observations and then lets other scientists take the political heat for publishing the findings. Just look at all the heat NOAA takes for simply releasing an accurate index of global temperatures to the public. Nothing confirms rapid AGW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarfun Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Hmm Well... they did get Cryosat 2 into orbit. After loosing Cryosat 1 According to the notes, they've had 6 successes, 3 failures with the Taurus XL rocket including loosing the 2009 Orbiting Carbon Observatory. Apparently the launch was fine, the satellite failed to separate from the booster rocket... and plunged back to earth. It sounds to me like NASA needs to get back to the basics. 30 years ago, NASA used to have triple redundancy on all mission critical equipment. We have 2 space probes launched in 1977 that are still active 33 years later. Hmm, they predate the Apple II, IBM PC, and Commodore PET. Most of the Earth Orbiting Satellites have something like a 5 year mission plan. One thing we desperately need is better continuity of measurements which means getting equipment that can give us reliable information over a 20+ year period. Shouldn't some of these "science" missions be sent to the International Space Station whenever they are in a compatible orbit, and thus a $500 million piece of equipment can be maintained and updated. One of the other things that NASA needs to do is to work harder on getting the information out to the people in an understandable format. I.E. The Cryosat-2 has been in orbit for a year now, yet we have yet to get any good ice estimates back. Average Sea Level Information is now obsolete. It is difficult to find continuous data sets on anything, and many of the images that NASA displays are single anecdotes. Obviously some of the images presented to the public are "cleaned up" (whether or not this is good). But, if we are spending $500 million on a satellite... perhaps 1% of that should go back to connecting, analysing, and disseminating public information. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that a third climate satellite has been lost. Hopefully more effort will be put into building functional equipment, rather than just shiny new stuff. NASA did not have triple redundancy, even on Apollo. The objective was to minimize single point failures, but not every single point failure could be overcome through redundancy. If you knew something about orbital mechanics, you would understand that launches from Vandenberg typically are for satellites that go into polar orbits. The space station and shuttles that launch from the Kennedy Space Center don't even get close to polar orbits -- they reach about 52N in inclination. One reason for that is NASA and the U.S. Government do not want a launch vehicle failure over populated areas. Earth observation satellites that are not in polar orbits have significantly reduced coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 If NASA spent more time disseminating its results, which all confirm rapid AGW, to the public (the results are published in peer-reviewed journals) they would probably be accused of advocacy and have their funding cut further. NASA conducts the observations and then lets other scientists take the political heat for publishing the findings. Just look at all the heat NOAA takes for simply releasing an accurate index of global temperatures to the public. What heat does NOAA take? Also, I think NOAA actually came in quite cool for this January...not sure what the final anomaly was , but land temperatures showed a serious decrease in their analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 I certainly support spending some effort to determine what our planet's climate has in store for us & nothing beats hard data. I have no problem with offering grants, or other programs to farm out the data analysis. As long as the information is also presented freely to the public. However, NASA has to stand for more than pretty pictures and bunny-hops on the moon. Cryosat-2 has been up in space for a year... where's the data/data analysis? Now, one can download raw datasets... perhaps that is what I'll have to attempt. But, wasn't the purpose to tell us if the sea ice is getting thicker or thinner? University of Colorado seems to have been monitoring sea levels... perhaps it was just a one-shot deal. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ But, all data seems to have stopped on September 29, 2010. Obviously there are many aspects to the data collected... but if we can't get the data out of these very expensive machines, they are just space junk. As far as the launch. I realize that Space is one of the harshest environments that Mankind has ever explored. We are now 54 years post-Sputnik. The Taurus XL Rocket has had a 75% failure rate since 2001, (although the overall failure rate is only 33%). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_%28rocket%29#List_of_launches It may just be bad luck, and should be diluted with all the other successful launches of other rockets. However, that is just not acceptable. If GM put out cars with a 75% failure rate... They would go bankrupt!! What should be the response to the next proposal to launch another RTG... Hopefully not on a Taurus Rocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Yeah where is Cryosat2 data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 University of Colorado seems to have been monitoring sea levels... perhaps it was just a one-shot deal. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ But, all data seems to have stopped on September 29, 2010. This site looks to show sea level up to around the end of November, 2010. Might take some time to reduce the Jason and other satellite data. http://www.aviso.oce...mean-sea-level/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 If GM put out cars with a 75% failure rate... They would go bankrupt!! They did go bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarfun Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Yeah where is Cryosat2 data? http://www.cryosat2011.org/ http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM660Y1LJG_index_0.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 http://www.cryosat2011.org/ http://www.esa.int/e...JG_index_0.html thats not the data, thats the site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarfun Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 thats not the data, thats the site Did you read? Can you read? Do you comprehend what you read? A.) that data is now available, so get your Sparc cranked up, register, and have at it. B.) the data is still of limited value because they are still doing validation...ground truth. As they note, they do not yet have an entire year's worth of sensor data that's been calibrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 What do you mean "that" data? pissed i have to download this sh*t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarfun Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 You may need four or five coupled Sparcs, and I hope you have a big pipe. http://esamultimedia...roc_Concept.pdf http://ckan.net/package/doris-cryosat BTW, the big pipe is needed because you will be getting either 430 or 860 gigabytes every day, depending on how much processing you want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.