The wait may be a while longer for CO2 answers

Whoopsy-daisy

These expsensive Failure Modes are almost always caused by something fairly simple eg: forgot to hook up wires for explosive bolts, forgot to turn on sequencer, etc

It's only taxpayer money. They'll happily build another one

 

The explosive bolts were probably installed by a hard line republican: "What global warming?"

Tom

 

Too funny. I mean, baaaaaaaaa

 

Even funnier. You sheepish guy, you

 

The software was programmed for a separation distance in metres, but was configured for a separation distance in feet.



(Something similar caused the crash landing of one of the Mars landers, as I recall.)

 

There already a couple of birds up that can provide a limited version of the same data. It's hard to imagine anybody paying for a redo on the OCO in the near future, so we will probably have to make do with what's already in orbit.

 

Now THAT made me laugh.

Anyway, it's always a bad thing to lose a bird. They cannot be easily replaced - takes years to rebuild, big bucks, and finding a slot on already booked launch schedules.

 

The really irksome part about that one was that the units difference was appearing as a systematic navigation error in prior burns IIRC. The team didn't resolve the source of the discrepancy.

I don't launch rockets, but I learned long ago to "sweat the small stuff" as something bigger was often lurking behind it. When that little voice is saying "hey, this is unexpected!" I pay attention or at least note it for future reference. Serendipity and eureka moments arise from answering those nagging questions/inconsistencies. Failure awaits those who routinely ignore them.

 

"Carry the units. Carry the units!"

Tom

 

Hmmmm. Like how NASA routinely declared "the SRB section o-rings will be just FINE in cold weather, no worries ...." KABOOOOOOOM

Or, more recently "that foam falling off during launch can't hurt anything ..." KABOOOOOOM

Again, what the hell, only taxpayer money. They'll eventually build and attempt to launch another one

 

Unfortunately, the hard data that would have been provided by the satellite would have probably provided an answer to what is absorbing most of the excess CO2. This question will eventually be answered, but will now take longer. Note that different answers support different theories, so we needed that satellite data to figure out which group sabotaged it.

 

Nothing is "absorbing most of the excess CO2"...that's the problem.

 

The ocean has to be absorbing some of it, else the pH would not be going down.

 

Some is not "most", hence the large rise in CO2. The yearly rise is actually pretty close to what I calculated by hand ~15 years ago... The ocean was actually expected to absorb more than it apparently has IIRC, but that has not occurred.

Two decades ago it was hoped by many (including myself) that the planet could deal with the massive excess in various ways. Those hopes have faded as we've learned more about the carbon balance. And CO2 concentrations have continued to rise each year.

 

I think it's from soda pop. Every time we open one some of the carbonation fizzes out.

You heard it here first, so when I win my Nobel Prize you can say you were with me at the "AHA!" moment.

Tom

 

Who does Dr James Hansen work for? I wonder how mcuh global warming funding NASA receives a year?

 

Agree. What I should have stated is the satellite would have helped resolve most of the "flux mismatchs" in present model. Data is better than models in every case.

 

The problem with government agencies is that true competency is pretty far down on the list. nice person kissing is pretty much at the top of the list

The same culture exists in large, senile corporations that don't have a hope in hell of surviving the next year