Gosh, Obama is such an idiot!

I've already seen the wackos blogging about intentional malfunction.
Wacko, or not, when's the last time a major structural component simply failed to function?
From images I've seen, the satellite was inside of a 'nose cone' type package, which was intended to pop open at the top, and fall away.
This stuff is the oldest of old hat in the space gadget game.
There must be a very specific reason.
Unfortunately, much like the foolishness following Challenger, there has to be a scapegoat.
Some guy with a wrench will be found at fault.
Unless someone like Richard Feynman comes along to prove the truth.
All said, the purpose was pretty far-fetched anyway...especially with all the reality checks going on RE Anthropogenic CO2*...what would the gadget have accomplished?
Maybe self-destruction turns out to be the expedient solution.
Hmmmm!
oh, yeah...I like this one...disappearing peat bogs are going to be the real killer...check on the CO2 effects they have...or used to have...we really are going to use it all up...then what?

Thank God Michael Griffin is no longer head of NASA. That man did more to damage science and the agency than anyone in history. Failed launched happen, they've happened since NASA's beginning, and they'll keep happening into the future. It doesn't matter a bit who's president at the time.

And will the next NASA admin, FINALLY try to look for life on Mars?  Why the EU could look for life with their very first/inexpensive mission, and our recent rovers and landers have not is beyond me.  It must be Taboo for those who really don't wish to find life beyond earth in the past admin.

At least explain what you're trying to say, Brandon!

The same people who blew up the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon blew up this rocket as well.  Isn't it obvious?  Really, nothing EVER goes wrong with technology, especially if it's a well known and oft-used product....

I am sorry to hear about the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. It is a personal loss for so many engineers , science and a financial loss as well. But like you said, stuff happens.

Whatever the restructuring plans for short term, I hope we don't abandon investing in space science to accomplish the ultimate goal of spreading the human species to other planets.

Keep going NASA...

very sad day for the OCO team! better luck next time, guys :(

Some arrogant Americans constantly acuse the Chinese to have stolen the American secrets, may be the Chinese have a lesson or two to teach NASA.

0ver 30,000 scientists sue AL Gore for the Global Warming Fraud:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

NASA should pay for polluting and their Carbon footprint.

When did NASA become so political? Oh right, when the neocons filled it with "scientists" who don't like science that refutes the Bible (that is to say, all science). F-ing crazy people. This is what happens when the cornerstones of our civilization fall before the onslaught of religion: our future falls into the ocean. Adios homo sapiens.

I'm retired now, but I spent most of the last 43 years in some aspect of the space business.  I've seen failed launches; they happen.  Some very smart people will now go out and find out why it failed.  That is how we learn. What these blogs show me mostly is the apalling ignorance on the part of the bloggers of just what goes on in the space business, and why.  Beyond the budgeting process, politics has little to do with it and it makes no difference who is/was President.  And by the way, we Americans have been looking for life on Mars since Viking landed in 1976. We haven't found it; neither have the Europeans.

"The $280 million mission, which apparently went awry due to an equipment malfunction, would have been the perfect showcase for NASA's changing priorities under the Obama administration."

Except that OCO was created and funded during the Bush administration. It should have been launched during the Bush administration too, but there was a launch delay:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0903/full/climate.2009.20.html

"OCO was greenlighted in 2001, and the launch was originally scheduled for 15 December 2008. Why was it delayed?"

"We had everything in place for that launch — the satellite was sitting there waiting at the launch site — but we're using a brand new launch vehicle, and NASA felt they had to put it through an extensive certification program..."

The certification program wasn't enough, obviously.

[ALAN ADDS: Yes, that's a good point. The mission was nine years in the making, and so there's no way you can say the OCO was an Obama administration project. However, it exemplified the direction that the new administration wants to take in space science.]

Some very intelligent responses from knowledgeable people.

Didn't the Japanese just put a similar sat in orbit?  Guess the west will just have to knock on their door for now.

Project and Mission failures happen. It is not easy to say and prove that it was a planted failure from an insider. No ethical engineer would like his or her project to fail.

Payload cover separation technology has been since the early 1960s.  There should have been a backup separation process to ensure success.  Who is doing the critical path work on something so important???

Well said Tom!

Thank you Tom Loggins for your sensible response to this very unfortunate event...the failure of OCO is a setback to a much needed earth science project...and is not a reflection of the failure of the past or present administration. I currently work in the space business, and am on the manned space flight side of business.  Every rocket motor test is exciting, as well as a source of concern if we should fail. But that is not personal. That is part and parcel of a scientific development project. To the OCO team, good luck in finding the root cause of the failure. I have no doubt that the team consists of some smart people who will resolve the technical problems.

Tom, I do know about the viking landers... from what I understand one experiement for life showed something promicing but others didn't.  To my knowledge, that was the last working experiement to look for life on another planet... potentially the biggest scientific discover EVER.  That was what 33 years ago?  Although the rovers are great... With the potential for such a discover just waiting there... sitting there to be found, I would have rather named those two rovers Missed Oportunity and Disapointment.  they've certainly contributed, but with such a potential discovery, they could have done a whole lot more.  The Beagle 2 Lander by the EU was very small... the size of a breif case if I remember right, so to me, there is no reason why at least some of those experiments couldn't have been carried by the rovers.  To me the Polar Lander was a huge waste and itself could have easily done more.  There definitely seems to me to have been a deliberate NON-INTEREST in looking for life on Mars.  Given what Viking found, it's more than worth a second look!

Did you notice that Obama did not apologize last night for wasting tax payer's money in the name of this scientific hoax? Isn't change wonderful?

Tom Loggins...very smart people...how we learn...
Give those two another thought.
Maybe you and the others aren't quite as smart as you think.
Is it possible that you just showed up every day, and got used to the periodic failures?
Oh, yeah very little politics beyond funding is kinda ironic, eh?

Truly sad that the OCO satellite had a fairing failure that kept the satellite trapped before it could deploy properly.  Hopefully NASA had it insured and can try again after rebuilding the satellite.  Even sadder what some of the dimbulbs have posted here about an intentional mishap.  I agree it's good that Michael Griffin, bushwhacker's boy, is no longer ruining NASA with his incompetent leadership.

Go NASA!

more OCO...
"The spacecraft did not reach orbit and likely landed in the ocean near Antarctica."...from NASA direct release...LIKELY???
pretty sorry, eh?
fix this mess... http://telecomsat.blogspot.com
no kiddin', Folks GAIA TWO works...even better than advertised...

Yep, an obvious case of sabatage - Bigfoot flew up from Atlantis and shot it down with his UFO.

Seriously, read the comments of Tom Loggins (above) - he's right on target ... [...]

"What these blogs show me mostly is the apalling ignorance on the part of the bloggers of just what goes on in the space business, and why. - Tom Loggins, Denver CO"

Tom, I certainly agree with you on that point.  But while politicians routinely point out their every accomplishment (real or imagined), I'm also amazed that the space community rarely - if ever - touts their accomplishments in a way that people relate to easily.

For example, I spoke with a relative of mine the other day, and she had recently conversed with someone who remarked, "What has the space program done except cost  us billions of dollars?"  It occurred to me that I had nothing on the tip of my tongue to refute that, nor did my relative.  After a few minutes consideration, it struck me:

- Does this person enjoy satellite TV?  How do they think satellites get into space?  
- What about cable TV (satellites beam the signals to cable providers)?  

I then did just the slightest bit of digging, and found these:

- What about a cordless appliances (this was born out of the Apollo program, and Black and Decker has sold $400 million cordless drills)?  That's undoubtedly created jobs, and made life easier for millions of people.
- The smoke detector was created for Skylab - now almost EVERY home in America has one.  How many lives has that saved?

There are literally thousands of items that have improved our lives on a daily basis, either directly or indirectly, yet few people realize they were developed as a result of our space program.  NASA out to tout these developments more prominently - they just might get more people on board with funding them better if they did that.

It's unfortunate this craft did not deploy properly.  I hope NASA is able to get a replacement craft built and launched soon.  Measuring our carbon changes really is an important issue for all of humankind.

It would cost less than a day in Iraq to build and launch a new one.  And no lives.

Don't waste your breath Tom, the world is populated with this sort everywhere. I have been working NASA Earth Science missions my whole career and have felt the loss of Science mission funding. Any failed mission is a great loss of opportunity to learn more about our world and how it functions. As for the save the planet folks, comedian George Carlin said it best: “The earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, it's been here a long time before us and will be long after we're gone.”

"Did you notice that Obama did not apologize last night for wasting tax payer's money in the name of this scientific hoax? Isn't change wonderful?"

Well, if you mean he did not say exactly what you already believe and wanted to hear, I guess that's true.

(And as noted, the sat was not budgeted, fabricated and tested, all since Inaguration Day. Would that we could do such things that quickly.)

Strange that we get this excited only about a simple satellite meant to pin down some numbers about THIS planet's atmosphere. Had it been, say, a methane detector meant for Mars...no, strike that. Conspiracy theorists would hop on that, too. ("They don't WANT to find evidence of life on Mars!" or some such B.S...)

No one seems to be realizing that the REAL travesty here, is that after over 50 years of spaceflight, we can't put one simple satellite, no matter what its purpose, into LEO with the same confidence (and not much more cost) than to send the same mass across the Pacific via UPS or FedEx. This should've been the relatively easy part, by now...

Am I really in thwe 21st century? Or did I take a wrong turn at Y2K?

i currently work at the base that launched this vehicle, watched it fly into the sky at 1:55 AM and i am part of the Space Command mission. the people that think this was destroyed on purpose think that the people that own the satellite are the ones that launch it.  that isnt the case. the way it works is that the satellite is delivered, as the vehicle ( rocket) is also delivered but the launch pads have a team that works those pads and a command and control center that has the same people each time. the launch decision is made by the local commander who is present at the time of the launch and is based on many factors. the fact that this launch had only a 4 minute launch window should show how difficult this launch was as opposed to some that have a launch window of hours.  i would suggest that people that dont have a clue about a subject, please refrain from commenting on it based on speculation or what you have heard from your sister's cousin's brother-in-law's next door neighbor's niece.

Yo, Grim...if what are saying is true...whatever it is you are saying...and you really are part of the command team...
is anyone surprised by the failure?
carry on...

"Yo, Grim.."   LMAO steve smyth...

Back in October 2005, Europe launched Cryosat to monitor changes in Earth's polar ice caps and it failed to reach orbit -- http://spaceflightnow.com/rockot/cryosat/. There have not been many satellites since then to monitor climate change.  Sounds like fodder for conspiracy theorists or maybe we have a Gary Busey like character working against the climate satellites programs. he he he.

Seriously, engineers might make these expensive satellites more failsafe.  If the clamshell did not open, what about an independent (or two) backup explosive/mechanical release, or making the clamshell heat resistant to re-entry and throw on a parachute and air bags and some electronics and jettison the unit so it could survive an abort into the ocean with minimal damage.  This would tack on maybe 10 - 20 million for each launch if doable.  The same could be said for satellites in which the stages fail to separate.  Remember, we are looking at a low probability, high-consequence system here.

And regarding NASA per se, its one situation in which trickle down has worked (thanks Dave F. and don't forget Tang).  But their public image sucks more or less, unless you are a geek. They just gotta eat crow and repurpose alot of their mission and aim for answering the extra-Terran life question, especially Mars--exciting the Millennials, Xers, and Baby Doomers. They must recalibrate the Mars Science Laboratory (or tack on some mini guideable swarm/fembots) toward these new methane vents and  "hot" springs and look for H202 or methane friendly life, even in-flight if the opportunity arises.  Lets see the evidence preponderant: ALH 84001, the ambiguous Viking experiment results and their anomalous daily variations, other rover-discovered microfossil-like artifacts, ambiguous rotini-like fossils, localized methane vents, liquid water, weird dynamic formations--http://marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2008/133/colossal-plants-revisit.htm,  and billions of years for ejecta from the earth and Mars and Titan to exchange proven safe havens for DNA/RNA/???NA and microbes.  Or, my personal favorite is how ice may be a critical incubator for life -- http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice.  Extremophiles may be the rule in our Solar system.

I can understand the perils of landing within or on chaotic systems and geography, but why not land among the "tree"-like forms MGS has uncovered above.  The technology and mapping is there now, esp w/ the skycrane.  Targeting safe relatively dead  areas is not going to excite the masses, find real-live bugs or result in favorability towards higher budgets.  Before that, the penchant for NASA brass to dismiss out of hand any biological explanation for strange, dynamic, or ambiguous findings must be thoroughly rooted-out, explained, remedied and enlightened.  The public is connected and aware these days and to them there is nothing worse than a scientist or science program that adheres to some unspoken dogma in the face of other evidence.

We don't want to see Russia or China or India discover incontrovertible proof of life on Mars before us, now, do we?

Google and/or Ansari and/or Paul Allen and/or especially NASA: please, an X-Prize for finding life on Mars/Venus/Titan/Europa, say $150 million!  Scientific naming rights to the found life should be part of  the prize.

We need a cheerleader for extra-Terran life pounding on NASA like the spirited Carl Sagan--even better that he worked for it.  I nominate Peter Ward.  He believes in a fecund galaxy of microbes and also is suspicious of NASA stumbling (deliberate?) on the Mars life question.

If life exists on an inhospitable Mars now then it probably exists in moste every other solar system in the universe at this moment.

Disclosure: Pops worked for the Apollo program.

Nas, kudos for thinking of having the nose cone perhaps serve as a re-entry vehicle!  I'd have serious doubts if it would work but my hat's off to ya for brain storming like that!  It might be easier if you had the satellite just come out with a smaller re-entry shield of its own but yeah... that would cost a lot and may not be worth it overall.  

I guess I've never even heard of this rocket.  I'm not up on all the new rockets but I do know some and this isn't one of them.  Is this their first launch?  What is their track record?  I know the Ariane V of ESA had problems initially but has since done very well... I think with only one partial failure.  I've followed this stuff a long time and stuff like this does happen...  Engine cut off too soon... etc, etc.  It's usually simple stuff on first attempts but I know the vaunted Japanese have struggled in the past a bunch of times.  I think they lost one on a side booster separation or the lack there of.  Again, I'm not current on all this but ESA seems to have a very successful history and a great current rocket.  I think Vega will soon fly as well.  I think as Frank said... this should be second hat, but it just goes to show ya that getting off a rock that has more mass than Venus, Mars, Mercury, Pluto, the asteroid belt and Halley's Comet combined, (and a thick atmosphere to go) really isn't all that easy.  Personally I don't think it will be till we have fly-back type stages that things will get cheeper.  There was a German concept in the 90s that called for an SST to carry payloads up above most of the atmosphere and lauch from there.  It also had the tremendous benefit of being able to serve as a new SST for commercial flights.  Given the new breakthroughs in scramjets, I think this concept is getting to be even more viable but we should keep the multi-function of commercial launch platform and flyback booster to lower costs and to help the airline industry actually afford a new gen SST.  18 hour flights to the other side of the world are great, but if you could cut that time to a 1/4 that would be even better!

Chris

actually i am not part of the command, but i am part of Space Command. but people think nasa launched this rocket and they did not. like all rockets launched from vandenberg AFB they are launched by the Air Force and the contractors that work there. even the civilian and foreign rockets are launched by AF and contractors

You call yourself "Science Facts," but your message is anything but.  The YT video is about 30K "scientists" who are suing Al Gore over Global Warming, but how many of these guys are actually practicing scientists with expertise to address the issues?

John Coleman, the guy speaking in the video, is not a scientist and never has been a scientist.  He's not a climatologist or a meteorologist.  His background is in journalism, not ANY branch of science.  This is a common thread - the idiots who know the least are the ones who are the most obnoxious and most certain.  

Quit getting your "news" from FOX and try reading some actual science.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):