Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   NASA satellite that was launched to track atmospheric CO2 levels will now be measuring oceanic temperature fluctuations   (cbc.ca) divider line
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

2896 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Feb 2009 at 1:10 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
KIA
2009-02-24 11:57:10 AM  
Good one! I would like to add:

1) Tinfoil hat sales soar as global CO2 monitoring satellite experiences "malfunction" and

2) There is no number 2.
 
2009-02-24 12:13:18 PM  
Didn't NASA just get into a pissing contest over transparency to the Obama administration? Seems like hundred-million dollar failures like this might not help when they try to secure additional government funding.
 
2009-02-24 01:15:07 PM  
$280 Million to learn what NOT to do when launching a satellite. Neat. Well worth the money, I say!
 
2009-02-24 01:15:25 PM  
If it was deliberately sabotaged, it was probably because the data could debunk global warming not support it.
 
2009-02-24 01:20:10 PM  
If we have oxygen and nitrogen tracking satellites, we can just use those and subtract the numbers from the total atmosphere.
 
2009-02-24 01:20:52 PM  
So, I know satellites are delicate and all, but there is no way it would have survived this, would it? I don't know if they plan ahead in their designs and make the casings water-tight, or shock-proof enough to survive plummeting into water.
 
2009-02-24 01:20:57 PM  
NASA is just trying out new concepts in the field of distributed systems.

It's evenly distributed across the ocean.
 
2009-02-24 01:22:58 PM  

degreeless: If it was deliberately sabotaged, it was probably because the data could debunk global warming not support it.


The scientists would welcome conflicting evidence. That's how science works.

It's the corporations that profit from pollution and resisting environmental regulation who hate the global warming thing. Going green is expensive, that how are they suppose to pay for their Caribbean CEO getaways if they have to pour funds into green R&D?
 
2009-02-24 01:23:49 PM  

mason4300: So, I know satellites are delicate and all, but there is no way it would have survived this, would it? I don't know if they plan ahead in their designs and make the casings water-tight, or shock-proof enough to survive plummeting into water.


There's usually a physical backup of the one that gets launched, but much of the price was in the launch itself.

And to answer your question, no, it could not have survived.
 
2009-02-24 01:24:06 PM  

mason4300: So, I know satellites are delicate and all, but there is no way it would have survived this, would it? I don't know if they plan ahead in their designs and make the casings water-tight, or shock-proof enough to survive plummeting into water.


I'm no rocket scientist, but I think the protocol when a rocket is malfunctioning is to detonate it in flight to prevent it from hitting anything important. Extra design and weight to save it from an ocean impact would probably be pointless.

Again, IANARS.
 
2009-02-24 01:28:18 PM  
"So long and thanks for all the fish THIS, motherfarkers..."
 
2009-02-24 01:29:10 PM  
Listen, all y'all - it was sabotaged.
 
2009-02-24 01:30:43 PM  

mason4300: So, I know satellites are delicate and all, but there is no way it would have survived this, would it? I don't know if they plan ahead in their designs and make the casings water-tight, or shock-proof enough to survive plummeting into water.


The satellite's periscope sees what you did.

Other farkers? Not so much.
 
2009-02-24 01:35:31 PM  
degreeless: If it was deliberately sabotaged, it was probably because the data could debunk global warming not support it.

it was debunked this January, silly, I read about it on fark.com
 
2009-02-24 01:36:00 PM  
 
2009-02-24 01:37:45 PM  
I thought the headline was a thinly veiled jab at the knowledge that C02 is a main cause of climate change, and implying that since the sat showed nothing of the sort, they retasked it to monitoring ocean temps in an attempt to prove they are right and deniers are wrong.

Then I read the article. A nice big fat fail by NASA, and a nice headline by subby.
 
2009-02-24 01:41:41 PM  

mason4300: So, I know satellites are delicate and all, but there is no way it would have survived this, would it? I don't know if they plan ahead in their designs and make the casings water-tight, or shock-proof enough to survive plummeting into water.


Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Good Lord! That's over 5000 atmospheres of pressure!
Fry: How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one.
 
2009-02-24 01:45:16 PM  
The layer of CO2 in the upper atmosphere is SOOO THICK that rockets cannot penetrate it.


Not as thick, mind you, as the people who believe all of this AGW crap.
 
2009-02-24 01:45:56 PM  
FARK! I was about to submit this with pretty much the same headline. Damn you subby.

With a price tag of $278 million, this qualifies as an epic fail in my book.
 
2009-02-24 01:49:08 PM  
Remo Williams unavailable for comment?
 
2009-02-24 01:56:31 PM  

Smokey the Bare: With a price tag of $278 million, this qualifies as an epic fail in my book.


FWIW, that's dirt cheap as far as NASA satellites go.
 
2009-02-24 01:59:27 PM  
God doesn't want us to measure global warming. He'll fix our global warming problem.
 
2009-02-24 02:07:55 PM  

MogKupo: Smokey the Bare: With a price tag of $278 million, this qualifies as an epic fail in my book.

FWIW, that's dirt cheap as far as NASA satellites go.


yeah, and nice headline subby. +1, would read again.
 
2009-02-24 02:10:50 PM  
F**K!



canyoneer: Evidently these eggheads don't understand the carbon cycle, after all.


Not to anything like completion, as I'm sure just about every last scientist on Earth would freely admit. Which perhaps is why they were trying to learn more about it. With this satellite submarine.

Perhaps they should have saved the money and asked you instead?
 
2009-02-24 02:14:24 PM  

KJM315: MogKupo: Smokey the Bare: With a price tag of $278 million, this qualifies as an epic fail in my book.

FWIW, that's dirt cheap as far as NASA satellites go.

yeah, and nice headline subby. +1, would read again.


True, but you gotta love that when NASA screws up, they REALLY screw up. Not to say that I would want to have the responsibility of 278 million on my shoulders...

/Actually I would want that responsibility
//damn go-getter attitude is gonna land me in some trouble
 
2009-02-24 02:16:34 PM  

Antimatter: degreeless: If it was deliberately sabotaged, it was probably because the data could debunk global warming not support it.

The scientists would welcome conflicting evidence. That's how science works.

It's the corporations that profit from pollution and resisting environmental regulation who hate the global warming thing. Going green is expensive, that how are they suppose to pay for their Caribbean CEO getaways if they have to pour funds into green R&D?


After having spent way too much time in grad school, I can authoritatively state that many (not all) scientists most certainly do not welcome conflicting evidence. They'll go on for quite some time about the scientific method and the pursuit of knowledge and debate and blah blah blah. Its mostly bullshiat. They're really protective of their theories in many cases. If you actually believe them when they talk about objectivity then that's great too. I guess. Someone needs to drink the Kool Aid to keep the whole myth going.

And hey, you go on believing that only corporations and big business are in the habit of stifling science and objectivity. In no way do universities and individual scientists do the exact same thing in a variety of fields.

Really, your post was kind of touching. If only it were true.
 
2009-02-24 02:25:53 PM  
I submitted this with a better headline, yadda yadda
 
2009-02-24 02:33:58 PM  

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: Antimatter: degreeless: If it was deliberately sabotaged, it was probably because the data could debunk global warming not support it.

The scientists would welcome conflicting evidence. That's how science works.

It's the corporations that profit from pollution and resisting environmental regulation who hate the global warming thing. Going green is expensive, that how are they suppose to pay for their Caribbean CEO getaways if they have to pour funds into green R&D?

After having spent way too much time in grad school, I can authoritatively state that many (not all) scientists most certainly do not welcome conflicting evidence. They'll go on for quite some time about the scientific method and the pursuit of knowledge and debate and blah blah blah. Its mostly bullshiat. They're really protective of their theories in many cases. If you actually believe them when they talk about objectivity then that's great too. I guess. Someone needs to drink the Kool Aid to keep the whole myth going.

And hey, you go on believing that only corporations and big business are in the habit of stifling science and objectivity. In no way do universities and individual scientists do the exact same thing in a variety of fields.

Really, your post was kind of touching. If only it were true.


Odd, my experience in grad school has been different... my adviser has openly admitted to me that his overarching theory, though the initial research others have done seems promising, that my research is looking into may be a pipe dream and accepts counter evidence.
 
2009-02-24 02:36:54 PM  
KIA
1) Tinfoil hat sales soar as global CO2 monitoring satellite experiences "malfunction" and
degreeless
If it was deliberately sabotaged, it was probably because the data could debunk global warming not support it.
Ecobuckeye Quote 2009-02-24 01:29:10 PM
Listen, all y'all - it was sabotaged.


Good thing aluminium prices are falling. Tinfoil hats were getting pretty expensive last year, but now I can find Alcan rolls for 88 cents.

Antimatter
It's the corporations that profit from pollution and resisting environmental regulation who hate the global warming thing. Going green is expensive, that how are they suppose to pay for their Caribbean CEO getaways if they have to pour funds into green R&D?


Bullshiat. The "corporations" can't wait to cash in on all the taxpayer funded "green industry" subsidies. Link (new window)
 
2009-02-24 02:37:45 PM  

BuckTurgidson: "Which perhaps is why they were trying to learn more about it. Perhaps they should have saved the money and asked you instead?"


Perhaps they should back off the wild predictions until they know more about it, eh?

Listen: I don't dispute the greenhouse effect or that it is the proximate cause of the warming trend in the atmosphere. However, I do object to all the alarmism and wild predictions. There seems to be a lack of perspective and calm, especially when so much is yet unknown about our planet's climate-weather-atmospheric-oceanic system.

Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005 - a small number. Clearly, all the mechanisms are not understood. The OGCM's are highly uncertain - especially regarding precipitation. Yet, to to listen to the hype, one would conclude that vast and always unfavorable changes will happen very very soon. Interesting how climate change is depicted as bad for every region - a logical absurdity. I'm just tired of the bum's-rush about all this, because the science doesn't support it.
 
2009-02-24 02:39:07 PM  

leehouse: Odd, my experience in grad school has been different... my adviser has openly admitted to me that his overarching theory, though the initial research others have done seems promising, that my research is looking into may be a pipe dream and accepts counter evidence.


Same with my grad school experience. I've found that scientists are far more willing to admit when their ideas are wrong than anyone else. There are bad apples, but these are a small minority.
 
2009-02-24 02:51:15 PM  
Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher

So where did you go to grad school? (You know, so I can not go to those places.)
 
2009-02-24 02:58:50 PM  

leehouse: Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: Antimatter: degreeless: If it was deliberately sabotaged, it was probably because the data could debunk global warming not support it.

The scientists would welcome conflicting evidence. That's how science works.

It's the corporations that profit from pollution and resisting environmental regulation who hate the global warming thing. Going green is expensive, that how are they suppose to pay for their Caribbean CEO getaways if they have to pour funds into green R&D?

After having spent way too much time in grad school, I can authoritatively state that many (not all) scientists most certainly do not welcome conflicting evidence. They'll go on for quite some time about the scientific method and the pursuit of knowledge and debate and blah blah blah. Its mostly bullshiat. They're really protective of their theories in many cases. If you actually believe them when they talk about objectivity then that's great too. I guess. Someone needs to drink the Kool Aid to keep the whole myth going.

And hey, you go on believing that only corporations and big business are in the habit of stifling science and objectivity. In no way do universities and individual scientists do the exact same thing in a variety of fields.

Really, your post was kind of touching. If only it were true.

Odd, my experience in grad school has been different... my adviser has openly admitted to me that his overarching theory, though the initial research others have done seems promising, that my research is looking into may be a pipe dream and accepts counter evidence.


So, you base your opinion on your experience with ONE person?? And they let you into grad school???
 
2009-02-24 03:06:16 PM  

nicksteel: leehouse: Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: Antimatter: degreeless: If it was deliberately sabotaged, it was probably because the data could debunk global warming not support it.

The scientists would welcome conflicting evidence. That's how science works.

It's the corporations that profit from pollution and resisting environmental regulation who hate the global warming thing. Going green is expensive, that how are they suppose to pay for their Caribbean CEO getaways if they have to pour funds into green R&D?

After having spent way too much time in grad school, I can authoritatively state that many (not all) scientists most certainly do not welcome conflicting evidence. They'll go on for quite some time about the scientific method and the pursuit of knowledge and debate and blah blah blah. Its mostly bullshiat. They're really protective of their theories in many cases. If you actually believe them when they talk about objectivity then that's great too. I guess. Someone needs to drink the Kool Aid to keep the whole myth going.

And hey, you go on believing that only corporations and big business are in the habit of stifling science and objectivity. In no way do universities and individual scientists do the exact same thing in a variety of fields.

Really, your post was kind of touching. If only it were true.

Odd, my experience in grad school has been different... my adviser has openly admitted to me that his overarching theory, though the initial research others have done seems promising, that my research is looking into may be a pipe dream and accepts counter evidence.

So, you base your opinion on your experience with ONE person?? And they let you into grad school???


Nope, I offered one of my experiences that happened to differ. I could offer you more examples, dealing with a large number of faculty, graduate students, PhD students, and a few research scientists. But it would still be just my experience, I'm not applying it to the scientific community as a whole, simply stating that my experience has been different than Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher's experience.
 
2009-02-24 03:16:14 PM  

kittylittle: KIA
1) Tinfoil hat sales soar as global CO2 monitoring satellite experiences "malfunction" and
degreeless
If it was deliberately sabotaged, it was probably because the data could debunk global warming not support it.
Ecobuckeye Quote 2009-02-24 01:29:10 PM
Listen, all y'all - it was sabotaged.

Good thing aluminium prices are falling. Tinfoil hats were getting pretty expensive last year, but now I can find Alcan rolls for 88 cents.


I'm not entirely sure, but I think the Ecobuckeye quote was a Beastie Boys reference.
 
2009-02-24 03:17:12 PM  
leehouse 2009-02-24 03:06:16 PM
nicksteel: So, you base your opinion on your experience with ONE person?? And they let you into grad school???

"Nope, I offered one of my experiences that happened to differ. I could offer you more examples, dealing with a large number of faculty, graduate students, PhD students, and a few research scientists. But it would still be just my experience, I'm not applying it to the scientific community as a whole, simply stating that my experience has been different than Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher's experience."


leehouse, you're perfectly right to reply to Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher anecdote with another anecdote, but don't both with nicksteel. He thinks opinion blogs count as scientific evidence. Oh, and he once claimed that it is patriotic to kill environmentalists.

Don't waste your time on him.
 
2009-02-24 03:22:13 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: kittylittle: KIA
1) Tinfoil hat sales soar as global CO2 monitoring satellite experiences "malfunction" and
degreeless
If it was deliberately sabotaged, it was probably because the data could debunk global warming not support it.
Ecobuckeye Quote 2009-02-24 01:29:10 PM
Listen, all y'all - it was sabotaged.

Good thing aluminium prices are falling. Tinfoil hats were getting pretty expensive last year, but now I can find Alcan rolls for 88 cents.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think the Ecobuckeye quote was a Beastie Boys reference.


Naaw, I just type that way to get street cred from the conspiracy community.
 
2009-02-24 03:22:32 PM  

BergZ: leehouse 2009-02-24 03:06:16 PM
nicksteel: So, you base your opinion on your experience with ONE person?? And they let you into grad school???

"Nope, I offered one of my experiences that happened to differ. I could offer you more examples, dealing with a large number of faculty, graduate students, PhD students, and a few research scientists. But it would still be just my experience, I'm not applying it to the scientific community as a whole, simply stating that my experience has been different than Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher's experience."

leehouse, you're perfectly right to reply to Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher anecdote with another anecdote, but don't both with nicksteel. He thinks opinion blogs count as scientific evidence. Oh, and he once claimed that it is patriotic to kill environmentalists.

Don't waste your time on him.


Of the times I have discussed anthropogenic climate change with him here on fark there was one instance where it remained a relatively amicable discussion. So there is hope at times. Not the hope that he will change his stance, but the hope that he will refrain from attacking anyone who disagrees with him.
 
2009-02-24 03:26:29 PM  
AGW is the tinfoil hat eggheads wear to keep cooling out of their brainwaves.
 
2009-02-24 03:30:18 PM  
Global Warming Zealots are coming up with their "intellectual" juicy theories of conspiracy. Stay tuned!
 
2009-02-24 03:31:18 PM  
/getting a kick out of these responses since I'm stationed at Vandenberg AFB.
 
2009-02-24 03:33:17 PM  

BergZ: leehouse 2009-02-24 03:06:16 PM
nicksteel: So, you base your opinion on your experience with ONE person?? And they let you into grad school???

"Nope, I offered one of my experiences that happened to differ. I could offer you more examples, dealing with a large number of faculty, graduate students, PhD students, and a few research scientists. But it would still be just my experience, I'm not applying it to the scientific community as a whole, simply stating that my experience has been different than Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher's experience."

leehouse, you're perfectly right to reply to Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher anecdote with another anecdote, but don't both with nicksteel. He thinks opinion blogs count as scientific evidence. Oh, and he once claimed that it is patriotic to kill environmentalists.

Don't waste your time on him.


aren't you precious??? And a liar!!!
 
2009-02-24 04:01:56 PM  
You people seem hopelessly naive to me. I can only hope that you are young, and have yet to wake up to the realities of the world.

Scientists are people just like used car salesmen and politicians are people, and if you think they don't fudge, connive, conspire and defraud just like ALL OTHER humans, then you are simply a fool, and I can only hope that you wake up soon, for you own sake, and for mine.

The scientific method is great for finding answers to questions. It is too bad that this is NOT what most scientists do. Most scientists simply perform experiments designed to confirm their pet theories, and when the results don't come out the way they want, they just suppress them, and run another experiment, often the same FARKing experiment.

In the end, the "science" ends up about as honest as the Al Gore recount effort. Let's count hanging chads in Broward County, but not Palm Beach County. Oh, that still gives Bush the win? Okay, let's have a recount where the canvassing board judges "intent of voter" in Broward County, but use the machine count in Dade County. What? That gives Bush the win, too. Then let's try recounting with....

The only scientists who actually follow the scientific method are epidemiologists and people who do imaging like MRI.
 
2009-02-24 04:02:14 PM  
nicksteel (favorite: Global Warming "truther") 2009-02-24 03:33:17 PM
BergZ:...Oh, and he once claimed that it is patriotic to kill environmentalists.

"aren't you precious??? And a liar!!!"


Sorry honey, I've got you on record:
nicksteel 2008-12-31 03:28:17 PM
"It is a war, the tree huggers obviously want to destroy the USA. Killing them is a patriotic act."
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=4114394
 
2009-02-24 04:07:16 PM  

Brockway: The only scientists who actually follow the scientific method are epidemiologists and people who do imaging like MRI.


Well that was random. I gotta ask: why the inexplicable shout-out for epidemiologists and MRI techs?
 
2009-02-24 04:22:00 PM  
Brockway: people who do imaging like MRI.

People with x-ray eyes?
 
2009-02-24 04:22:28 PM  
Mad Tea Party 2009-02-24 04:07:16 PM :

Well that was random. I gotta ask: why the inexplicable shout-out for epidemiologists and MRI techs?


I was really just referring to the two types where bias isn't nearly as much of an influence because the results speak for themselves, without need for conclusions/editorializations on the part of the operator. I guess I could add DNA sequencers and combinatorial library chemists to that list. It's pretty hard to be biased about what the DNA sequence is, though I suppose if the species is rare enough you could make up nearly any sequence and nobody would know until long after you are dead.
 
2009-02-24 04:25:24 PM  
conservativeinc.comView Full Size


Wanted for questioning...


/hot
 
2009-02-24 04:28:44 PM  
The scientists would welcome conflicting evidence. That's how science works.

Sure, the ones not bought and paid for by the environmental lobby would welcome it.
 
2009-02-24 04:39:43 PM  

canyoneer: Listen: I don't dispute the greenhouse effect or that it is the proximate cause of the warming trend in the atmosphere. However, I do object to all the alarmism and wild predictions.


Fair enough.

Personally, most of the alarmism and wild predictions I have seen here and elsewhere consist of alarm that people might start to believe climatologists rather than energy-industry spokespeople, and predictions that this will lead to the end of capitalism as we know it.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report