NASA report failed satellite launch

www.youtube.com...
www.nasa.gov...

The Glory satellite was a planned NASA satellite mission that would have collected data on the chemical, micro-physical and optical properties—and the spatial and temporal distributions—of aerosols, and would have collected solar irradiance data for the long-term climate record.

The science focus areas served by Glory included: atmospheric composition; carbon cycle, ecosystems, and biogeochemistry; climate variability and change; and water and energy cycles.

The launch on March 4, 2011 failed six minutes into the launch due to a problem with the separation of the payload fairing. The satellite failed to reach orbit.
en.wikipedia.org...

You can watch the events unforld in this video: www.youtube.com...
Five minutes into the video is when they notice things go wrong.


(Let's see if anyone here thinks it's a coverup and that NASA "don't tell us what they're really doing" )

reply to post by wildespace


Holy crap, I actually watched this thing fly off to.

Watched it from ground up, more or less. I'm about an hour from good old VAFB.

to me, it looked like a great launch. :\ but I'm not very smart with these things.

What would be the point in covering up nothing, what is there to cover up anyway?????

Damn, I know people who were looking forward to that data to help improve our understanding of clouds

reply to post by dellbboytrotter


The thing to cover up with this launch would be that if it was indeed successful and they told the public it was a failure then they would not have to share any of the data from the Glory satellite with the public. (The data could theoretically determine the effect or lack thereof of chemtrailing operations)

I'm just curious as to what "launch contingency" they have if it was evident that the Taurus XL did not have enough velocity for the Glory to achieve orbit since the fairing did not seperate.

Isn't it common to let the rocket explode when launch fails?
If yes: then why is there no explosion visible

That does sound fishy. The payload fairing is about the simplest part of a sat launch. And why Vandenberg, thats usually for special projects. Sounds like something is not what it seems.

EDIT: S & F thanks

reply to post by JizzyMcButter


i heard on the news that this is the second time the titan xl has failed to loft payloads. guess the insurance premiums will go into orbit instead.
f

I'll personally affirm you all that the there was no explosion, at least not in this atmosphere.

I watched this thing take off and to me, what looked like, enter orbit.

have seen a few reports on this.

and was just wondering what happens now?

does this crash back to earth?

Seems the problem occurred not long after stage 2 placing it at 160+ kilometres in altitude, which is considered (very) low earth orbit.

I wonder how high it managed to get after an extra 9 minutes. It was still flying at 15:35...

www.nasa.gov...

It looks like it was still flying when they ended their commentary/coverage.

Originally posted by JizzyMcButter
I wonder how high it managed to get after an extra 9 minutes. It was still flying at 15:35...

www.nasa.gov...

It looks like it was still flying when they ended their commentary/coverage.

It will fly for quite a while, but will eventually be slowed down by the atmospheric drag, re-enter and burn up.

By the way, here's a scarier launch failure, from Russia: www.youtube.com...

NASA's Glory mission fails to reach orbit (photos)

The satellite Glory was to be part of a NASA mission to enhance the agency's modeling of the Earth's climate and reduce uncertainties about the causes and consequences of climate change. Among other things, the craft was intended to offer look at how aerosols affect climate. It will also help maintain a record of total solar irradiance.

This is just one of some amazing pictures.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/06a839d763a6.jpg[/atsimg]

news.cnet.com...

This does not sound like a weapon to me, it has to do with how aearsols effect climate.

Remember the NASA Discoverer Program from the 1960's?

The Discoverer Program

Where there's NASA, there's always Something Else.

Just came across this interesting little tidbit:

"Chemtrail - Aerosol studying SATELLITE has been DESTROYED - March 4, 2011"



Accidental? I think not

reply to post by Newbomb Turk


Err so who sabotaged the satellite?

And why would they (government) send a satellite up to look at 'chemtrails' if they (government) are the ones doing it?

What a stupid theory.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Very good points. People call NASA "Never A Straight Answer", yet I find that it's the conspiracy theorists that never give a straight answer.

As unbelievable as it may sound to some people, NASA -are- doing real science, and accidents -do- happen.

Bump for lack of others scrutinising the suspiciousness of it.
And then there was a mass sardine die off of the coast of California. Related? Who knows...

Originally posted by Chakotay
Remember the NASA Discoverer Program from the 1960's?

The Discoverer Program

Where there's NASA, there's always Something Else.

edit on 4-3-2011 by Chakotay because: CLASSIFIED

While the discoverer program was disinfo to cover for Corona/Keyhole, it wasn't a NASA operation. It was CIADST and USAF, predating NASA and AFSPC. However before you jump on the '"NASA" wasn't around yet but it still was them!', charade, keep in mind the forerunner NACA, did exist and had nothing to do with Discoverer/Corona.