Potential Energy

NASA's Climate Satellite Crashes Back to Earth

The failure means that a gap in climate science will remain.

Kevin Bullis 02/24/2009

  • 6 Comments
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory and its Taurus booster lift off from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Credit: Orbital Sciences Corporation

A satellite designed to answer one of the biggest remaining questions in climate-change science has fallen into the ocean after a launch failure, the Associated Press reports.

The amount of climate change in the next decades could be much more or much less than currently predicted because of a significant gap in scientists' knowledge. One of the greatest uncertainties in predicting climate change is what natural mechanisms are involved in capturing carbon dioxide. Currently, on average, half of the carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels is taken up by oceans and plants; it doesn't remain in the atmosphere, so it doesn't contribute to global warming. But because scientists don't know precisely which mechanisms are involved or necessarily how they work, they're not sure that this will continue.

There are two distinct possibilities. First, the mechanisms could shut down. For example, some argue that the oceans won't be able to absorb much more carbon dioxide, and may even start releasing some of what they've absorbed so far, speeding climate change. On the other hand, other natural mechanisms for absorbing carbon dioxide could actually increase in the future, slowing global warming.

The differences between the two could be extreme. Even now, from year to year, the amount of carbon dioxide that's absorbed varies widely: sometimes none of the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels is absorbed; sometimes just about all of it is (though this is likely due to weather variations, including droughts, and not necessarily due to long-term trends).

The satellite was designed to help scientists determine which mechanisms are dominant by allowing them to trace where carbon dioxide is being absorbed, and how much. Ground-based measurement stations aren't up to the task.

Money in the stimulus bill directed toward NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration could pay for a new carbon-dioxide monitoring satellite. A Japanese satellite launched earlier this year is also gathering information about carbon dioxide, but with significantly less resolution than the NASA satellite.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

Gaetano Marano

246 Comments

  • 1085 Days Ago
  • 02/24/2009

>>> this is the SECOND "new NASA rocket" failure! will Ares-1 be the 3rd? >>>

.

this is the SECOND "new NASA rocket" failure!

the first was the (new) ATK ALV X-1 rocket:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALV_X-1

and... http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/021chillinglaunch.html

will the Ares-1 be the 3rd "new NASA rocket" failure?

unfortunately, I believe it could/will be:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

.

Reply

nekote

139 Comments

  • 1083 Days Ago
  • 02/26/2009

Re: >>> this is the SECOND "new NASA rocket" failure! will Ares-1 be the 3rd? >>>

Is the failure of the payload fairing to separate considered a "rocket" failure?

Reply

  • 1065 Days Ago
  • 03/16/2009

Re: >>> this is the SECOND "new NASA rocket" failure! will Ares-1 be the 3rd? >>>

the usual idea of a visionary person who is not too sound of mind.

Reply

delayen

6 Comments

  • 1083 Days Ago
  • 02/26/2009

conspiracy!

It's the Al Gore conspiracy at work here, I tell you! He knew this sattelite would disprove all his global warming theories. He had unemployed liberal arts majors infiltrate NASA posing as government inspectors. They jammed tofu into the payload fairing, thereby causing separation failure and subsequent crash. Ingenious! Rumor has it that Almost Mr President is experiencing tremendous guilt over littering the ocean with the downed rocket in order to achieve his goal. Carbon credits trading have been have been suspended for the day so that Al can get some much needed rest. 

Reply

durs

44 Comments

  • 1081 Days Ago
  • 02/28/2009

Re: conspiracy!

Was Cheney anywhere around?

Reply

xjetmx

1 Comment

  • 1083 Days Ago
  • 02/26/2009

i wonder why

sabotage

Reply

Bio

Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Subscribe to the Potential Energy RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement