And the Earth warmers sobbed

ESA's director comments on the loss of CryoSat

A European satellite that was to have helped understand global warming
by scanning the thickness of polar ice sheets crashed into the Artic
Ocean after its Russian launcher failed. The 170-million-dollar
CryoSat satellite blasted off from Russia's northwestern Plesetsk
cosmodrome atop a Russian-built Rockot launch vehicle but failed to
achieve orbit.
Volker Liebig, ESA’s Director of Earth Observation, answers questions
on the loss of ESA’s CryoSat due to launch failure.

What does this loss mean for Europe and for the scientific community?

CryoSat was meant to be the first satellite of ESA’s Earth Explorer
series. These missions are tailored to respond to particular needs of
the international science community.

CryoSat, the first of the series, was devoted to the study of ice,
monitoring precise changes in the thickness of polar ice sheets and
sea ice. In particular, CryoSat was meant to be a very advanced and
unique tool for scientists to study trends in the depletion of polar
ice and to improve the understanding of the relationship between ice
and global climate.

This loss means that Europe and the worldwide scientific community
will not be able to rely on such data from the CryoSat mission and
will not be able to improve their knowledge of ice, especially sea ice
and its impact on climate change.

What impact will this loss have on the future of Earth Observation
activities?

CryoSat is the first mission to be lost after a long series of
successful Earth Observation missions for ESA (Meteosat, ERS-1, ERS-2,
Envisat and Proba-1).

This is a big loss for ESA’s Earth Explorer Programme, but it does not
jeopardise the overall strategy and approach of ESA’s Living Planet
Programme, nor of Explorer missions. The planned series of dedicated
Explorer missions to follow are still on track and will be built as
planned. These a GOCE, devoted to Earth gravity, in 2006, SMOS on
soil moisture and ocean salinity, planned for 2007, and ADM-Aeolus on
Atmospheric Dynamics.

Whether there might be delays in the launch dates of future missions
due to the launch failure will be assessed once the Investigating
Commission of the Russian State authorities has given its results on
the reasons for the launch failure. However, it seems to be unlikely
taking into account the long interval between the various launches.

Can you carry out the same research with other existing systems such
as the US IceSat?

IceSat is a US satellite mission devoted to ice. It carries different
instruments to CryoSat. CryoSat would have had the advantage of a very
precise radar altimeter as a unique all-weather tool to measure ice
thickness.

In addition, CryoSat was meant to fill the gap of a few degrees in
terms of coverage of the poles that exists with the currently running
missions like IceSat.

Cooperation with the US on IceSat will be investigated by the European
scientific team engaged in CryoSat in the field of the planned
calibration campaigns.

Can ESA rebuild the satellite?

This is one of the things we have to study now together with industry
and the scientists. We have to analyse which parts and systems are
still available, in which time frame it could be achieved and for what
cost. Then we have to go to the Programme Board and ask for the
decision of ESA’s Member States.

How much would it cost?

This cannot be said as of today. On the one hand we still have many
things available like the ground segment and operational budgets; on
the other hand it will depend on the price industry is ready to offer
for a second model. The industrial contract to build the first
satellite was 70 MEuro, out of a global envelope of 136 MEuro
including ground segment, three years of operations and launch costs.
A “clone” of the original CryoSat should be less expensive.

How long would it take?

Again this question can only be answered after a careful assessment. I
cannot give a precise answer immediately. I imagine it would take some
three years as we do not have to start from scratch. The design phase
has already been done once and we would “only” have to go through
manufacturing and testing.

Would ESA use the same launcher operator?

Before taking a decision we will have to wait for the results of the
Inquiry board and assess the time needed to build CryoSat 2. The
decision on the CryoSat 2 launcher would be taken in due time.

What are the options for the Ministerial Conference in the Earth
Observation Envelope Programme?

So far we have received much support from our Member States for the
next phase of the Earth Observation Envelope Programme (EOEP-3). We
will do our best to fit this mission within the financial envelope we
will be allocated by the Ministers. It is clear that we will be able
to optimise the chances of rebuilding CroySat if the EOEP programme is
fully subscribed to by ESA Member States at the Ministerial Conference
in December.

Will this event have an impact on ESA’s relationship with Russia?

Space has always been a risky business. Failures can happen on each
side. From this end I do not expect any impact on relations with
Russia. I wish to underline that in this particular case we, ESA, were
customers to Eurockot, the launch service provider, which is a joint
venture between EADS Space Transportation (Germany) and Krunichev
(Russia).

Source: ESA

What are you saying Rich...Your glad this happened? Do you also not believe
that most global warming is due to man?


"Rich" wrote in message
...


ESA's director comments on the loss of CryoSat

A European satellite that was to have helped understand global warming
by scanning the thickness of polar ice sheets crashed into the Artic
Ocean after its Russian launcher failed. The 170-million-dollar
CryoSat satellite blasted off from Russia's northwestern Plesetsk
cosmodrome atop a Russian-built Rockot launch vehicle but failed to
achieve orbit.
Volker Liebig, ESA's Director of Earth Observation, answers questions
on the loss of ESA's CryoSat due to launch failure.

What does this loss mean for Europe and for the scientific community?

CryoSat was meant to be the first satellite of ESA's Earth Explorer
series. These missions are tailored to respond to particular needs of
the international science community.

CryoSat, the first of the series, was devoted to the study of ice,
monitoring precise changes in the thickness of polar ice sheets and
sea ice. In particular, CryoSat was meant to be a very advanced and
unique tool for scientists to study trends in the depletion of polar
ice and to improve the understanding of the relationship between ice
and global climate.

This loss means that Europe and the worldwide scientific community
will not be able to rely on such data from the CryoSat mission and
will not be able to improve their knowledge of ice, especially sea ice
and its impact on climate change.

What impact will this loss have on the future of Earth Observation
activities?

CryoSat is the first mission to be lost after a long series of
successful Earth Observation missions for ESA (Meteosat, ERS-1, ERS-2,
Envisat and Proba-1).

This is a big loss for ESA's Earth Explorer Programme, but it does not
jeopardise the overall strategy and approach of ESA's Living Planet
Programme, nor of Explorer missions. The planned series of dedicated
Explorer missions to follow are still on track and will be built as
planned. These a GOCE, devoted to Earth gravity, in 2006, SMOS on
soil moisture and ocean salinity, planned for 2007, and ADM-Aeolus on
Atmospheric Dynamics.

Whether there might be delays in the launch dates of future missions
due to the launch failure will be assessed once the Investigating
Commission of the Russian State authorities has given its results on
the reasons for the launch failure. However, it seems to be unlikely
taking into account the long interval between the various launches.

Can you carry out the same research with other existing systems such
as the US IceSat?

IceSat is a US satellite mission devoted to ice. It carries different
instruments to CryoSat. CryoSat would have had the advantage of a very
precise radar altimeter as a unique all-weather tool to measure ice
thickness.

In addition, CryoSat was meant to fill the gap of a few degrees in
terms of coverage of the poles that exists with the currently running
missions like IceSat.

Cooperation with the US on IceSat will be investigated by the European
scientific team engaged in CryoSat in the field of the planned
calibration campaigns.

Can ESA rebuild the satellite?

This is one of the things we have to study now together with industry
and the scientists. We have to analyse which parts and systems are
still available, in which time frame it could be achieved and for what
cost. Then we have to go to the Programme Board and ask for the
decision of ESA's Member States.

How much would it cost?

This cannot be said as of today. On the one hand we still have many
things available like the ground segment and operational budgets; on
the other hand it will depend on the price industry is ready to offer
for a second model. The industrial contract to build the first
satellite was 70 MEuro, out of a global envelope of 136 MEuro
including ground segment, three years of operations and launch costs.
A "clone" of the original CryoSat should be less expensive.

How long would it take?

Again this question can only be answered after a careful assessment. I
cannot give a precise answer immediately. I imagine it would take some
three years as we do not have to start from scratch. The design phase
has already been done once and we would "only" have to go through
manufacturing and testing.

Would ESA use the same launcher operator?

Before taking a decision we will have to wait for the results of the
Inquiry board and assess the time needed to build CryoSat 2. The
decision on the CryoSat 2 launcher would be taken in due time.

What are the options for the Ministerial Conference in the Earth
Observation Envelope Programme?

So far we have received much support from our Member States for the
next phase of the Earth Observation Envelope Programme (EOEP-3). We
will do our best to fit this mission within the financial envelope we
will be allocated by the Ministers. It is clear that we will be able
to optimise the chances of rebuilding CroySat if the EOEP programme is
fully subscribed to by ESA Member States at the Ministerial Conference
in December.

Will this event have an impact on ESA's relationship with Russia?

Space has always been a risky business. Failures can happen on each
side. From this end I do not expect any impact on relations with
Russia. I wish to underline that in this particular case we, ESA, were
customers to Eurockot, the launch service provider, which is a joint
venture between EADS Space Transportation (Germany) and Krunichev
(Russia).

Source: ESA

Stu wrote:
What are you saying Rich...Your glad this happened? Do you also not believe
that most global warming is due to man?

Makes you kind of wonder, though, if the underlying cause of the failure
was something deliberate...

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:45:40 GMT, "Stu"
wrote:

What are you saying Rich...Your glad this happened? Do you also not believe
that most global warming is due to man?


I think Earth warming theory is providing lots of work for some
people and lots of jobs and MONEY to the Far East, particularly
in light of the ridiculously lobsided Kyoto Protocol.
-Rich

ESA's director comments on the loss of CryoSat

ESA? Weren't they the same jokers that launched 4 Cluster satellites
on the _maiden_ flight of Arianne 5?

Would ESA use the same launcher operator?

Run a million miles (sorry, kilometers) from these muppets! Use a
proper launch vehicle. Yes, I know budgets are tight, but this is just
penny wise and pound foolish.

Will this event have an impact on ESA’s relationship with Russia?

Space has always been a risky business. Failures can happen on each
side.

Particularly if you're entrusting an important space science mission to
a converted ICBM that was not designed for the job at hand. A tip for
you ESA: avoid converted ICBMs, no matter how attractive the price is,
and use launch vehicles that have a proven track record (i.e. let some
other poor sucker get blown up in the beta testing phase).

Al wrote:

Particularly if you're entrusting an important space science mission to
a converted ICBM that was not designed for the job at hand. A tip for
you ESA: avoid converted ICBMs, no matter how attractive the price is,
and use launch vehicles that have a proven track record (i.e. let some
other poor sucker get blown up in the beta testing phase).

What isn't a converted ICBM? Pegasus...anything else?

"Shawn" sdotcurry@bresnananotherdotnet wrote:

Al wrote:

Particularly if you're entrusting an important space science mission to
a converted ICBM that was not designed for the job at hand. A tip for
you ESA: avoid converted ICBMs, no matter how attractive the price is,
and use launch vehicles that have a proven track record (i.e. let some
other poor sucker get blown up in the beta testing phase).

What isn't a converted ICBM? Pegasus...anything else?

I meant converted ICBM in the literal sense -- that is, a moldy old ICBM
that was taken out of service and then modified to carry a satellite. That
is quite different than an ICBM-derived design... Some of those SS-19
ICBMs have been rotting away in silos for 25 years, hence their low price.

Shawn posted:

What isn't a converted ICBM? Pegasus...anything else?

Of vehicles currently being used, Delta II and III, Atlas V, Ariane,
Space Shuttle, and Pegasus are all not converted ICBMs. With the
exception of the Atlas V, each has had at least one flight which was a
failure. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

One reason that many of us are skeptical of the greenhouse skeptics is
that it seems the high profile ones are funded by or working for - who
else - the fossil fuel industry:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...45&method=full

http://www.evworld.com/archives/inte...gelbspan2.html

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online...h/skeptics.htm

Of course, the more you can ignore environmental protections, the more
profit you'll make - it's the oil industry is who is making all the
money;

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p.../1003/BUSINESS

"While most Americans are worried about the cost of filling their
gasoline tanks and keeping their homes warm this winter, Congress seems
more concerned about whether profit margins in the energy sector are
sufficiently large.

On Friday, the House passed a bill that aims to increase refining
capacity by providing new subsidies to the industry and by rolling back
environmental protections. The bill comes on the heels of an energy act
that attempted to expand production by extending a host of similar
favors to the oil industry."

Oil industry awash in record levels of cash
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/

Record Prices Mean Record Profits for Oil Companies
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1029991

RECORD PRICES, RECORD OIL INDUSTRY PROFITS
Consumers Gouged, Oil Industry Enriched, As Gasoline And Natural Gas
Prices Increase By $250 Billion Since January 2000
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/co...es/001086.html

NASA page on global warming:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to know that no matter how much
carbon dioxide and methane we dump into the atmosphere everything will
still just be peachy. But what if isn't?

Even if we can keep burning fossil fuels safely as far as environmental
costs go, why isn't the US government seriously thinking about the
politcal consequences of not having alternative energy supplies in
place when China and India start to compete with us for ever dwindling
oil supplies? (read the above and a few ideas come to mind). It's going
to happen sooner or later, probably sooner. I'm not at all looking
forward to butting heads with the largest country on earth...

How We Would Fight China:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200506/kaplan

"The Middle East is just a blip. The American military contest with
China in the Pacific will define the twenty-first century. And China
will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was..."

I fear that this reliance on the whims of the market and oil industry
is going to lead to some major problems...

K. Michael M.

------------

Rich wrote:

I think Earth warming theory is providing lots of work for some
people and lots of jobs and MONEY to the Far East, particularly
in light of the ridiculously lobsided Kyoto Protocol.
-Rich

On 12 Oct 2005 08:46:24 -0700, wrote:

One reason that many of us are skeptical of the greenhouse skeptics is
that it seems the high profile ones are funded by or working for - who
else - the fossil fuel industry:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...45&method=full
I'm skeptical of any "science" that needs research
projects that are REQUIRED to prove that it's accurate before any
of the data is examined. The Canadian government
was offering grants to scientists totalling $70m
but ONLY if your thesis was designed to prove
the theory. If you're goal was unbiased or
designed to prove the opposite, or look for evidence
for other reasons for global warming, you weren't
qualified for a grant. Are we now going back to
the Aristotolean or Catholic Church science methods??
-Rich