James Hansen on CO2--Doubling Down on Our Faustian Bargain

[eridani]

Last edited Wed Apr 3, 2013, 03:28 AM - Edit history (1)

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/271-38/16757-doubling-down-on-our-faustian-bargain

The principal implication of our present analysis relates to the Faustian bargain. Increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution is a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes. The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be. Yet globally there are plans to build more than 1,000 coal-fired power plants and plans to develop some of the dirtiest oil sources on the planet. These plans should be vigorously resisted. We are already in a deep hole -- it is time to stop digging.

The tragedy of this science story is that the great uncertainty in interpretations of the climate forcings did not have to be. Global aerosol properties should be monitored to high precision, similar to the way CO2 is monitored. The capability of measuring detailed aerosol properties has long existed, as demonstrated by observations of Venus. The requirement is measurement of the polarization of reflected sunlight to an accuracy of 0.1 percent, with measurements covering the spectral range from near ultraviolet to the near-infrared at a range of scattering angles, as is possible from an orbiting satellite. Unfortunately, the satellite mission designed for that purpose failed to achieve orbit, suffering precisely the same launch failure as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO). Although a replacement OCO mission is in preparation, no replacement aerosol mission is scheduled.

[msongs]

1. the people have vision and are failed by the leaders who are owned by the past.

coal, nuclear, internal combustion. all obsolete and the walking dead, but the massive corporate structure buys its prostitute politicians to try and maintain the old order in the face of free energy sources: wind, tide, solar. and that is rooftop solar owned by people, not from massive industrial arrays

[haikugal]

2. I thought it odd

that those two very important missions failed to reach orbit. Guess I need a tin foil hat but it was too convenient to go unnoticed.

[Ghost Dog]

3. + same cause: (sabotage?)

By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News, 4 March 2011

... The Glory satellite lifted off from California on a quest to gather new data on factors that influence the climate. But about three minutes into the flight, telemetry indicated a problem. It appears the fairing - the part of the rocket which covers the satellite on top of the launcher - did not separate properly...

... The loss of the $464m (£260m) Glory mission is a huge blow to the Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) as well as Nasa. The company makes the rocket and assembled the Glory satellite for the space agency.

Exactly the same problem befell Nasa's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) in 2009. It too launched on a Taurus XL rocket from the Vandenberg Air Force Base, and again the fairing failed to separate properly. On that occasion a "Mishap Investigation Board" was established to determine the root cause of the nose cone's failure and to make recommendations to remedy the malfunction. Following the board's findings, OSC took the separation initiation system used on another of its rockets, the Minotaur 4, and installed it on the XL. Friday's launch was the XL's return to flight after the OCO loss.

"There's a great deal of emotional investment on the part of all the players on any spaceflight but that's doubly so on a return to flight," said Ron Grabe, the general manager of OSC's launch services group. "I think it's not an understatement to say that tonight we're all pretty devastated."

Glory was carrying two instruments. One of its instruments would have measured the total energy coming from the Sun; the other would have looked at particles in the atmosphere that can trap that energy or scatter it back out into space. Understanding both is vital to our ability to forecast future climate change...

/... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12551861

The OCO was launched Feb. 24, 2009 aboard the Taurus T8 launch vehicle from Space Launch Complex 576-E at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in California. Following the 9:55:31 UTC liftoff, the launch proceeded nominally up to Stage 2 ignition. Vehicle telemetry was received until the Taurus transmitters were commanded off at 10:09:58 UTC. A contingency was declared at 10:11:09 UTC.

MISHAP CAUSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

NASA’s major goal in performing mishap investigations is to improve safety and mission success probability by identifying the causes of a mishap, and by providing recommendations that will prevent future occurrences of similar events. By performing analyses to determine ‘why’ the mishap occurred, the MIB did identify four potential causes that could have led to the failure.

The investigation carried out by the MIB resulted in validation that the Taurus launch vehicle fairing failed to separate upon command. Fairing sensor data (microphone, temperature, acceleration) and the separation breakwire indicated that the fairing did not separate from the launch vehicle. Simulation models of Taurus performance, assuming the fairing did not separate, were developed. The models showed good agreement and analytically demonstrated performance impacts that are consistent with the performance experienced on the OCO mission.

The MIB analyzed the payload fairing system design, manufacturing, inspection, assembly, and testing, and associated telemetry in order to identify a more detailed cause. The MIB was unable to determine which component or subcomponent was the direct cause for the fairing not to separate, but identified a number of hardware components whose failure modes could be potential causes: fairing base ring frangible joint, electrical subsystem and the pneumatic system hot gas generator (HGG) including its pressure cartridges. The potential causes with specific recommendations are summarized below...

/... http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/369037main_OCOexecutivesummary_71609.pdf

Has anyone seen data on how common such fairing failures are?

[haikugal]

4. Yes...it was my first thought after the second failure.

Having the information they would have supplied would have been inconvenient to certain interests in my view.

Thanks for the links.