Comments on: NASA’s ‘Carbon Hunter’ Lands In The Drink

By: TDoc

TDoc — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:03:45 +0000

Shouldn’t we be glad NASA is finally gearing towards some projects more meaningful to the Earth than boasting our outer space competence to other countries?

This video (http://www.newsy.com/videos/launch_fails_for_nasa) has a quote from Gene Cernan: “It just blows my mind what they would do to an organization like NASA that was designed and built to explore the unknown. We have other agencies, environmental groups and oil companies, auto companies and T. Boone Pickens to figure out how we can survive and save the world.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the fact that you had been out there shouldn’t make you less concerned about the planet you LIVE IN…

By: Confucius

Confucius — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:51:44 +0000

Very funny!

By: Confucius

Confucius — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:50:24 +0000

Another tidbit from http://www.timesonline.co.uk:

“Chuck Dovale, Nasa’s flight director,said that all the evidence suggested that every stage of the rocket burnt up during the ascent, meaning that there was no environmental threat from the hydrazine.”

By: brad

brad — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:05:20 +0000

HUZZAH! We saved the planet! The HUGE carbon footprint it took to create this thing will not be repeated! Just think of all the carbon dioxide wasted:

The fuel to bring the scientists to work every day.
The fuel to make the fuel.
The carbon footprint they emitted, existing during that time.
The carbon emitted to make the satellite plastic, metal, computer parts.
The carbon emitted hauling those parts.
The carbon burned during launch.
The carbon burned upon re-entry into our atmosphere.
The fuel and energy spent picking up all the broken parts.

This is as big of a waste of time, as those nitwit activists on the discovery channel, who found a special wrap, and actually tried to save a glacier by wrapping it with this stuff. (yes, a gigantic glacier! –Fools!) Go here to part 1:10 and listen to this guy’s ultimate goal of shrink-wrapping melt-zones.
*Hey buddy, ever see the video of Pangea? The earth changes and moves around….a lot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKNW-QradOI

By: pinandpuller

pinandpuller — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:53:14 +0000

I think that they launched it too close to a heat source.

Wow, I wonder how long it will be till the first abortion is performed in space?

By: todamndumb

todamndumb — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:22:19 +0000

does any else find it overly coicidental that the only two taurus rocket failures were of an ozone monitor and a carbon dioxide monitor

By: Colonel1961

Colonel1961 — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:51:54 +0000

I can tell you that the instrument was not rigged (the satellite itself is merely a ‘dumb’ bus) in any manner. Nor am I sure you could even rig a spectrometer, HgCdTe and Si focal planes, or the baffles.

If you think the down-linked data is pre-programmed or manipulated in any way – on this or any other scientific satellite – then I feel very sorry for you…

By: DGA

DGA — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:23:20 +0000

I say the taxpayers need to not put any more money into NASA as a whole organisation, until they fire James Hansen. Well, that would be possible in a republic, but now this quasi socialist/ communist wannabe deal, we have as close to zero rights left. Anyway, that failed satellite was probably rigged to give out swayed data like all their other recording stations are.

By: Confucius

Confucius — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:35:40 +0000

Thanks Colonel1961.

Correction: I hope it a baby seal on the way down. Maybe even an eco-terrorist.

By: Colonel1961

Colonel1961 — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:26:49 +0000

Apparently, it fell into the ocean, so no polar bears were injured during the ‘parabolic launch’ of this satellite. Of course, there aren’t any polar bears in the Antarctic region to begin with…

I wonder, however, if the MSM will express outrage that one hundred pounds of extremely toxic hydrazine have been dumped into the precious ocean?

By: Colonel1961

Colonel1961 — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:41:23 +0000

A quote from the ‘Fact Sheet’: ‘…OCO provides space-based observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal anthropogenic driver of climate change.’ Or, as I would say: petitio principii…

p.s. it was two-and-a-half years behind schedule and $100.0M over budget.

By: GuppyNblue

GuppyNblue — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:44:48 +0000

NASA compromised their science when they started advocating the GW scam. The man who led them into it, James Hansen, took big money from George Soros’ "politicization of science" program. And now they can’t even put a satellite in orbit. They could benefit by researching what Ford Foundation money did to our universities.

By: MinnesotaRush

MinnesotaRush — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:26:34 +0000

How poetic that this mission go awry. Doesn’t it kinda draw an uncanny comparison .. illustration .. to o-blah-blah and this administration??? A whole lot of noise and friction .. tons of money thrown at it .. no real or effective mission .. and then – pffffffffffft .. no meaningful results or outcome!

By: Grassy Knoll

Grassy Knoll — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:25:06 +0000

I think it was a successful launch. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) satellite has found a great source of carbon: the ocean, which acts as the largest natural carbon dioxide sink. It just couldn’t help itself.

By: grits

grits — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:51:24 +0000

“What is the ‘carbon footprint’ of a space launch anyway?”

My exact thought.

But they’ll get a chunk of the porkulous for a re-do, while intellectually honest scientists can’t keep a job.