iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

NASA Launch Fails: Taurus XL Rocket Crashes Into Ocean With Glory Climate Satellite (VIDEO)

Nasa Fail

AP/The Huffington Post   First Posted: 03/04/11 12:58 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM ET

(Scroll down for video)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A rocket carrying an Earth-observation satellite plummeted into the Pacific Ocean after a failed launch attempt Friday, the second-straight blow to NASA's weakened environmental monitoring program.

The Taurus XL rocket carrying NASA's Glory satellite lifted off early Friday morning from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but fell to the sea several minutes later. The same thing happened to another climate-monitoring satellite two years ago with the same type of rocket.

"We failed to make orbit," NASA launch director Omar Baez said at a press conference Friday. "Indications are that the satellite and rocket ... is in the southern Pacific Ocean somewhere."

Officials explained that a protective shell atop the rocket didn't come off the satellite as it should have about three minutes after launch. That left the Glory spacecraft without the velocity to reach orbit.

The 2009 failed satellite, which would have studied global warming, crashed into the ocean near Antarctica. Officials said Glory likely wound up landing in the same area. Both were on Taurus rockets launched by Orbital Sciences Corporation of Dulles, Va.

NASA has already started a board to investigate the mishap. The next NASA Earth sciences launch on a Taurus rocket is scheduled for 2013 but the space agency can still change launch vehicles if the Taurus proves unreliable, NASA Earth Science Director Mike Freilich told The Associated Press.

"I don't know if that's necessary or not," Freilich said. "We're not going to fly on a vehicle in which we don't have confidence."

The $424 million mission is managed by the NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. NASA paid Orbital about $54 million to launch Glory, according to Orbital spokesman Barron Beneski. The Taurus rocket has launched nine times, six of them successfully.

NASA and Orbital spent more than a year studying and trying to fix the problem that caused 2009's Orbiting Carbon Observatory to fail. The payload fairing – a clamshell-shaped protective covering for the satellite – did not open to release the satellite.

The same thing happened with Glory, officials said.

"We really went into the (Glory) flight feeling we had nailed the fairing issue," said Ronald Grabe, general manager of Orbital's launch systems division and a former space shuttle commander.

Orbital officials said they redesigned the system used to trigger the removal of the protective covering and a similar system worked three times in other Orbital rockets, not the Taurus. There are different weight and size issues with the Taurus rocket.

Had Glory reached orbit it would have been on a three-year mission to analyze how airborne particles affect Earth's climate. The tiny atmospheric particles known as aerosols reflect and trap sunlight. The vast majority occurs naturally, spewed by volcanoes, forest fires and desert storms. Aerosols can also come from manmade sources such as the burning of fossil fuel.

Glory would also have tracked solar radiation to determine the sun's effect on climate change.

For about a decade, scientists have complained of a decline in the study of Earth from space. NASA spent more money looking at other planets than it did at Earth in 2007. That same year, the National Academy of Sciences warned that NASA's study of Earth "is at great risk" with fewer missions than before and aging satellites.

NASA's Freilich said airplanes and other satellites can track climate change, though not as well. The solar radiation tracking is done by other older satellites and will continue, while a new proposed satellite, scheduled for launch by the end of the decade, can look for aerosols, he said in a telephone interview from Vandenberg.

The loss of Glory will mostly hurt projections and modeling of future climate change, he said.

"The NASA team does the things that are important, not necessarily the things that are easy," Freilich said. "Sometimes it takes more than one try at it."

Investigators spent several months testing hardware after the 2009 accident, interviewing engineers and reviewing data and documents. The probe did not find evidence of widespread testing negligence or management shortcomings, but NASA declined to release the full accident report, citing sensitive and proprietary information.

WATCH:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

(Scroll down for video) WASHINGTON (AP) -- A rocket carrying an Earth-observation satellite plummeted into the Pacific Ocean after a failed launch attempt Friday, the second-straight blow to NASA's w...
(Scroll down for video) WASHINGTON (AP) -- A rocket carrying an Earth-observation satellite plummeted into the Pacific Ocean after a failed launch attempt Friday, the second-straight blow to NASA's w...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 498
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (11 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trickish Knave
Both sides suck, but neither will admit it.
04:29 PM on 03/09/2011
Does that mean when it crashed it made a Glory hole?
02:40 PM on 03/07/2011
The Multi million $$$ Nasa/vanderburg TARUS XL ROCKET landed just off shore of the island of Rikitea in French Polynesia .
France and Tahiti are pissed !!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnUSA
Just keep swimming, just keep swimming...
11:22 AM on 03/07/2011
conspiracy anyone?
photo
TulsaMikel
Your micro-bio has been denied!
10:45 AM on 03/07/2011
If that satellite ever makes it to space it will prove there is no man-made global warming and they will lose there funding.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
12:32 PM on 03/07/2011
"If that satellite ever makes it to space it will prove there is no man-made global warming and they will lose there funding."

How would the data about aerosols have disproved the human contribution to global warming?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramkshrestha
Welcome to Nepal - the birthplace of Buddha
06:42 PM on 03/06/2011
NASA failed means millions dollars gone without any achievement.
04:52 PM on 03/07/2011
s/NASA/Congress;s/millions/trillions

Waste of money yes, biggest waste of money... not even close.

(For the regex impaired: "Congress failed means trillions dollars gone without any achievement.")
07:05 AM on 03/11/2011
NASA is a waste of money. I wish our Gov't. would cancel the next space shuttle launch but the money has already been spent for it. Limit NASA to launching un-manned vehicles into space.No more joy rides for people on the taxpayer's dime. The money would be better spent on shoring up social security.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Hirnlego
05:05 PM on 03/07/2011
That's how it works with science. A lot of effort will go to waste but they are actually important too.
photo
timqueeney
Thrills and guffaws and chills
02:33 PM on 03/06/2011
Maybe this was an example of interagency cooperation. Maybe NASA was making a surprise gift of the Glory satellite to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA has got to be tickled to be getting an unexpected gift like this from its famous big brother. http://bit.ly/ed4hzj
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JPETERB
12:13 PM on 03/06/2011
Wasn't the commercial launch and public payload very well insured? Is that information proprietary too? More facts, please.
09:36 PM on 03/06/2011
The government self-insures their payloads even when they launch on commercial rockets (which includes anything other than Shuttle, the only noncommercial launch vehicle in America). This means they set aside some money in case the mission should fail -- not the whole amount, but a certain portion intended to reflect the risk of failure.

They generally have to allocate additional funding to replace a failed mission. Otherwise they recycle the "insurance" money back into the appropriate budget. This is what happened with OCO. Orbital said they could have a new satellite ready to launch by the end of 2010 (roughly now), but the allocated funding was such that the replacement OCO won't be ready until 2013.

I imagine that we're talking about 2015 or so until we can replace Glory -- at best. The GOP Congress and along with the Democratic White House (which always entails a dramatic resurgence of the deficit hawks) might put a damper on that possibility.
12:11 PM on 03/06/2011
dumbing down the language: "fail" instead of the clearly much more difficult "failure"
02:06 PM on 03/06/2011
hmmm... guess you're not up on current slang?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trickish Knave
Both sides suck, but neither will admit it.
11:53 AM on 03/06/2011
Two satellites sent up to study global warming failed to reach orbit. I'm sure Al Gore is counting his blessings.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
12:37 PM on 03/07/2011
"Two satellites sent up to study global warming failed to reach orbit. I'm sure Al Gore is counting his blessings."

What has Gore said about aerosols?
06:02 PM on 03/07/2011
Palindrom's second law: The more a poster mentions Al Gore in the context of climate change, the less thoughtful and informed they tend to be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trickish Knave
Both sides suck, but neither will admit it.
04:27 PM on 03/09/2011
TK's First Law: The truth hurts, regardless of how many Laws you make up to gel a delusional position.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JPETERB
11:51 AM on 03/06/2011
The globalists do not want accurate weather and climate data. It disproves 100 years of fossil fuels are cheap and safe propaganda. So science satellites that provide actionable current climate data about the Earth's rapidly changing climate are counterproductive at best. Bush's NASA canceled and delayed climate research along with these lines of satellites while he was in office. Looks like the fix is still in to stop the science at any cost.
09:14 AM on 03/06/2011
"The Taurus rocket has launched nine times, six of them successfully."

Wow, a failure rate of 34%, I bet the insurrance is quite expensive.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:57 AM on 03/06/2011
It's the Govt. Built by the lowest Bidder....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Downix
03:53 PM on 03/06/2011
No, it's a private launch vehicle.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Downix
03:54 PM on 03/06/2011
The Taurus II is due to come online later this year. All new systems, sharing nothing with the existing Taurus XL other than the name.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:04 PM on 03/06/2011
Hope the QC dept. is up to speed..
09:40 PM on 03/06/2011
Yes, but Orbital also had problems with the payload fairing and spacecraft separation on Pegasus, so it stands to question whether they really understand the mechanisms and systems integration necessary to make this work reliably.

Do you know if the T2 payload fairing has any outside flight pedigree? I don't recall reading anything about that.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:03 AM on 03/06/2011
Many space launch vehicles do not reach orbit. Sad but true. It is a strange business that accepts up to a 2% catastrophic loss rate as normal.

What surprises me is that, with such extremely complicated machines, operating with poisonous and highly explosive fuel, there are not more failures.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDogBear
08:43 AM on 03/06/2011
"It is a strange business that accepts up to a 2% catastroph­ic loss rate as normal."

You can't really make blanket statements like this. The failure rate depends on all kinds of things and is very specific to the domain you are working in. I've managed large software projects, a failure rate of 2% (a manager who had only 2% of projects go over budget) would be amazing.

On the other hand if 2% of the bridges designed by an architectural firm collapsed we would think they were criminally negligent. But humans have been designing bridges for several millenia. We've been launching rockets for less then a century.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trickish Knave
Both sides suck, but neither will admit it.
12:03 PM on 03/06/2011
Although we have been in the space business for less than a century we have spent more money of the space program that bridge design, I would assume. We accept a far less failure rate for airline travel and we have been commercially flying for about the same amount of time as we have been seriously launching rockets into space.

There are 5000 flights a day over the United States and from 1950 to 2009 there have only been 1300 fatal airline accidents. Why can't we expect the same track record for NASA?

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
missouriwatcher
military veteran, veteran teacher, father, grandpa
09:47 PM on 03/05/2011
Maybe the polluters sabotaged it.  They'd certainly have reasons for doing so.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wendy Davis
Banned!
11:44 PM on 03/05/2011
That thought entered my mind.  Let's hope we are wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
missouriwatcher
military veteran, veteran teacher, father, grandpa
11:47 PM on 03/05/2011
Yes, let's hope.
photo
CivilDebate10
Low Info People = Statism's Best Friends
12:05 AM on 03/06/2011
Maybe the Global Warming crazies sabotaged it because it would show they are overeacting
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1kant2
08:35 AM on 03/06/2011
From which school have you graduated to offer such an astute view? The school of Beck, or the school of Limbaugh? Did you take the 5 minute course at BeckU or the 4 minute course at UofL?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
missouriwatcher
military veteran, veteran teacher, father, grandpa
11:43 AM on 03/06/2011
That I seriously doubt!  You may well be overdenying.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pita143
Virtue mine honour
06:49 PM on 03/05/2011
These satellites are the most complex devices man has ever made. To have failures occasionally will happen. The only difference between these and auto failures is the fact that these are much more dramatic, but there are far less satellite failures than auto failures. And on a scale of 1 to 100, a car is a ONE and a satellite is around 300.
06:53 PM on 03/05/2011
it was the rocket that failed, not the satellite
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDogBear
08:39 AM on 03/06/2011
I think he means the whole system of getting a satellite in orbit as well as maintaining it which would include the rocket to put it in orbit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
uncc49er
05:33 PM on 03/05/2011
the kind of news that makes libs happy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pita143
Virtue mine honour
06:48 PM on 03/05/2011
I love trolls who act like 4 year olds with their name calling. I bet you will find more Libs in favor of NASA than Cons because the Cons want private industry to do the work and charge the American Tax Payers 3 to 4 times as much for the same thing.
06:54 PM on 03/05/2011
actually, i think you are likely wrong. libs want to spend more on bread and circuses not math and sciences
10:02 PM on 03/05/2011
As lefty NASA fan, I have to disagree. I'm quite outnumbered on spaceflight-related web forums. It's about 80% conservatives on those sites, and many of them are actually skeptical of the Obama admin's plans to outsource launch services to commercial providers.

By and large, liberals have gone sour on NASA because they think it diverts funding from social welfare programs (even though NASA is a drop in the bucket by comparison) and environmental programs (even though NASA is one of the top sources of climate data). 

Meanwhile, a great many conservatives are likely to see spaceflight as an instrument of American prestige and exceptionalism and a unique domain of industrial policy worthy of federal funding in the conservative view, in a similar sense as military funding.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wendy Davis
Banned!
11:50 PM on 03/05/2011
Regardless of what has caused the rapid increase in the melting of the glacier fields on mountains and the ice caps, there may be a time when migration is necessary.  Having it done orderly requires advance notice which this piece of equipment will provide.  Living at sea level will be impossible.