As another NASA Climate Satellite Explodes – Conspiracy or Incompetence?


NASA Glory Satellite end up crashing in glory



By: John O’Sullivan

Cynics suggest foul play as NASA rocket explodes and yet another crucial space mission to measure global warming ends in disaster.

Reports are that a catastrophic system failure of the second NASA’s ‘Glory’ Satellite is believed to have caused the craft to crash into the ocean somewhere near Antarctica. The onboard Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was a satellite system designed to measure how tiny airborne particles in the atmosphere affect the earth’s climate.

Satellitegate conspiracy talk reared its ugly head again as soon as the rocket exploded shortly after take off from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.The satellite was, in fact, a replacement for the first OCO that also exploded in 2009 in similarly strange circumstances. Again, cynics are suggesting foul play.

The OCO system was designed to be instrumental in finally settling the global warming debate.The observatory would have been able to show scientists precisely how much energy is falling from the Sun onto Earth.

Thus researchers could have precisely calculated how much, if at all, human emissions of carbon dioxide were altering the climate; perhaps even proving that the scare over man-made global warming has been a hoax all along.

Lightning Strikes Twice’ to Thwart Climate Researchers

According to experts it appears the same problem that doomed the 2009 OCO launch has led to a second explosive failure causing further embarrassment to the faltering trillion-dollar US space agency. The back-to-back ‘Taurus XL’ failures have resulted in losses totaling nearly $700 million.

Despite NASA’s “ thorough investigation” and assurances that a problem with a detachable heat shield on the nose of the satellite had been fixed ‘lightning struck twice.’

“Exact same rocket, exact same failure” said BBC’s Science Correspondence Jonathan Amos who told BBC News viewers (March 4, 2011) that the “clam shell” nose cone covering that protected the rocket failed to detach properly five minutes into the launch.

The BBC speculated that the rocket might have been either too heavy or too slow precipitating the failure of the nose cone to detach; thereby the rocket’s trajectory fatally altered causing the craft to explode mid-flight.

More Proof to Deepen the SatelliteGate Scandal?

With yet another $250 million investment now laying on the bottom of the ocean floor the world is again left without reliable measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

As this author first exclusively reported in 2010, there are grave and persistent problems not only with both the OCO rockets but other satellites designed to measure climate change as shown herehereherehereherehere and here.

The OCO was “the only satellite in the world that will do the kind of global collection we need,” said James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and one of the authors of a 2010 report on satellite monitoring of climate change. “And we haven’t thought about how to replace it.”

So will this turn out to be yet another ugly chapter in the Satellitegate scandal? A news conference is scheduled for later today to discuss this failure and how NASA will proceed. For updates check the NASA website here.

Source: John O’Sullivan


Filed under Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, John O'Sullivan, NASA, Sattelitegate

10 responses to “As another NASA Climate Satellite Explodes – Conspiracy or Incompetence?

  1. I was in the process of writing this article when I found yours. Sounds fishy to me. As a Quality Engineer, I know that NASA whould have made a serious attempt to avoid a duplication of an error. Just think back and try to find two failures in a row for the same thing. I don’t think you will find any. Considering these two satellites could have ended the AGW myth, it certainly seems there could be a common cause here and that could well be sabotage. This deserves an investigation.

    I think I will just refer folks to you. Good job.

  2. Thank you for your kind comments. I’ll offer my thanks to Mr. O’Sullivan for a stellar article.

    It certainly seems fishy to me and it does make one wonder if there’s something going on to try to perpetuate the global warming myth as jobs, grant money and funding are all at stake. If there’s no global warming then that all goes away.

  3. BlackMike

    Has anyone entertained the thought that the launch was an sucess. And the public was told it was a failure to hide the fact the the sattelite was actually a weather control weapon. Think about it, Japan just had the strongest earthquake in recorded history.

  4. RocketMan

    You guys are idiots…. I’m sorry for being disrespectful, but come on. This is a prime example of why we need to emphasize science and technology in our schools.
    Let me start with BlackMike’s response first: A weather control satellite? Heck, if we had that, why don’t we just make it rain? And then he references an earthquake?? Ah, Mike, earthquakes and weather are two different phenomena. And, oh, btw, if it was successful and in orbit, a 1000 amateur space buffs would know it. Reference the orbital maneuvers of the AF’s X-37.
    Then Mr Griffin, here’s a prime example of two failures in a row for the same thing – two Atlas 1 launches in the late 80s/early 90s both failed for misdiagnosed ice blocking a fuel line. Launching rockets is, ah, rocket science. It’s not easy.
    Finally to the article itself, first, the rocket didn’t explode- it simply didn’t reach orbit then fell back into the Pacific. Second, if there was a system failure, it was on the rocket, and not on the NASA satellite. Third, this was a NASA satellite and NASA paid for the launch, but the launch was by Orbital Sciences for NASA. So if this was a conspiracy, it involved NASA and Orbital Sciences, yet Orbital will lose millions of dollars because of it. Hmmm… I wonder if global warming is that important to them?
    Here’s my conspiracy theory- the space aliens who shot Kennedy and rigged explosives in the Twin Towers also brought down this rocket with a secret ray gun, not for global warming, but just to simply mess with us.

    • Wow! That was a real post full of scientific proof! This is the usual response when you don’t have anything – bluff away with ad hominem attacks.

    • You’ll note, RocketMan, that your critical comments are allowed to stand so the readers can see multiple POVs and make up their own minds on the subject at hand. If you could convince the leftistas to do the same at RealClimate (as an example of a propaganda site that masquerades as a science site), that would be refreshing.

  5. I won’t address this to any individual, but I would add to my previous post that there were 50+ consecutive successful launches without a hitch. And no, it was not the rocket that failed or any part of the launch system according to inside information. It was the payload cover that failed to function. It was not the failure of a rocket engine to perform properly. There was no mis-diagnosis. They know what happened in both events. All I said was that there was an anomoly that deserves some level of investigation. IT DOES! I am not claiming nor have I ever claimed there was some evil at work. From a purely statistical approach, with a potential motive with 10’s of $Billions at stake, I would look into anything and anyone relating to the clamshell cover. Or you could bury your head in the sand.

  6. Didn’t we just have satallite data that showed that more heat was radiating from earth then global climate change theory predicts should be?

    I have to wonder if these satallite failures are intentional. There are many who may fear the data they would send back!

    Global warming is no longer about data! Well not about any data that might disprove the theory. You see, the theory is correct, no matter what the data says!

    So maybe for some, as in those currently in power, it is best we do not actually have any satallites that actually produce data! They do not want accurate data, they only want data that proves their theory is right!

    • Ryan Biggs

      Global warming is no longer about data? Nonsense. Maybe you caught this:

      The Glory satellite (which was a climate satellite but NOT the OCO replacement, which is to launch in 2013) just so happened to be the first launch of the particular type of rocket involved after the failure of the OCO launch. So, it failed twice in a row in the same way. If my car did that after I took it to the shop, I’d figure it was more likely that the shop simply failed to fix the problem than it was the result of some vast conspiracy. (These rockets are relatively “cheap”, which, along with their theoretical suitability to the orbits needed, is one reason why they were chosen for these climate missions.)

      Those that think that it is possible for there to be a scientific – or governmental – conspiracy to cover up data don’t understand science at all. Science is completely decentralized, and there is always a huge gain to be had for research that provides evidence against the “popular” or “official” conceptions, no matter how controversial it is. Science, as a whole, is constructed to encourage dissenting information, not obscure it. No government or organization can change this, except perhaps over a short period of time. You may disagree, but if you do, your position has no evidence in history.

  7. Graham hK

    To think this research has to be funded by the private sector is unreal. We have governments around the world misdirecting billions of dollars of their tax payers’ funds on the say so of suspect science. Suspect in part because this satellite, were it to get into orbit, could determine how real is the AGW hypothesis. If it is shown not to be caused by CO2 period, many scientists are going to look pretty sad as their jobs evaporate – hopefully their masters will go to.