|
Post by Morgan Sierra on Mar 4, 2011 18:21:44 GMT -6
NASA Launch Fails: Taurus XL Rocket Crashes Into Ocean With Glory Climate Satellite (VIDEO)AP/The Huffington Post By JESSICA GRESKO and SETH BORENSTEIN First Posted: 03/ 4/11 12:58 PM Updated: 03/ 4/11 02:19 PM www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/04/nasa-fail-launch-glory_n_831428.html#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. CLICK THE ABOVE LINK TO READ MORE
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Mar 5, 2011 11:08:50 GMT -6
What is really interesting about this story is that this is the second time a rocket carrying a satellite whose mission was to study climate change has crashed in the past two years. Exactly two years apart as a matter of fact. Both of these satellites were part of NASA's global warming study and they both failed to reach orbit. Could there be a conspiracy here? Is somebody trying to sabotage the global warming study to prevent evidence from being acquired that would prove global warming is real? Or is it possible that maybe the mission was sabotaged to prevent evidence from being discovered that would disprove global warming as a bunch of nonsense? Ether way, 400 million dollars is a lot of money to be dumping at the bottom of the ocean. Think of how many hungry people that money could have fed. Or how many homeless people it could have housed. What a waste...
|
|
sansseed
Full Member
Failure is not an option
Posts: 417
|
Post by sansseed on Mar 5, 2011 15:28:52 GMT -6
I think, given the amount of rocket launches, there is a bit of strangeness here. At the very least, it raises an eyebrow. Statistically speaking, for every launch there is going to be a certain amount of failure. Yet, with our current technology, you would think that percentage would be very low. So, to have two launches fail, and carrying the same pay load, you have to ask questions.
The strongest motivator to sabotage something like this would be money. Follow the money, and you will find the answers IMO. There is money to made is global warming (carbon credits), and yet there is money to be lost if global warming is proven (environmental regulations). **shrug**
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2011 15:31:41 GMT -6
Or it could simply be incompetent engineers like the ones who designed the first Mars probe where they did the calculations in meters and built the thing in feet...
|
|