Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Alex Antunes | February 24th 2009 01:57 PM | 11 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More The Daytime Astronomer articles

All

About Alex Antunes

In "The Sky By Day", Dr. Alex Antunes serves twice-weekly slices of life from the sometimes strange, sometimes oddly normal workday of a NASA astrophysicist. Readers get the inside scoop on what... Full Bio

Sadly, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) had a launch failure, and is now spread out on Antarctica somewhere. Ironically, I'd written earlier today about the economics of the New Horizons mission.

For New Horizons, well, that launched successfully. OCO did not. This is a fundamental part of rocket science-- it either works or it doesn't. It either blows up or remains intact. When you're only launching one, the stakes are high. And rockets are risky.

The OCO satellite did everything it was supposed to do during launch-- namely, sit tight and not do anything. It was a rocket failure, but that's enough to kill OCO.

There's still talk of possibly using a 'flight spare' to relaunch. I was with one mission that did this. Astro-E had a rocket mishap, so they used flight spares to build another and launch as Astro-E2.

The pluses of using flight spares is that the hardware research is already done, as is most of the manufacturing. So the cost is much lower.

The downside is, a flight spare isn't a ready-to-fly backup. Instead, it's one or more partial assemblies of the equirment. Typically, it hasn't been tested-- or it's the parts that were tested and failed, so they got shuffled out of the final payload. So flight spares can be a source of parts, but slightly lesser parts.

Often, you'll make several of a key component-- a CCD, a collimator, an amplifier. Then you'll test them all, and put the highest performing one onto the final payload. So the spares aren't 'bad', per se, but they are not as optimal as the ones you use (obviously enough).

And, bear in mind launches aren't cheap-- for New Horizons, it was estimated as $205 million, or a quarter of the entire mission cost.

So what is OCO's future? It is possible that a new OCO could be built, and it's certainly more cost-effective to rebuild a satellite than to start a new design from scratch. That's why GPS and TDRSS and Iridium satellites are sent as multiples-- they use a tested design to simply rinse and repeat the same goal. But there are still costs involved, that have to be weighed.

Rocket science, in the end, is about risks more then easy answers. RIP, OCO satellite, and good luck, OCO project.

Alex, the daytime astronomer

Comments

"""
the stakes are high. And rockets are risky.
"""

The stakes were, indeed, high. But rockets for launching into low earth orbit are not risky. The shoestring-budget Taurus XL: rocket *is* risky. It was *known* to be risky. It had only flown 7 times before and one of those seven times was *another* failure. Now it's flown 8 times and failed *twice*... this time taking with it one of the most important satellites we've ever (tried to) launch. 25% failure rate. I'm not even emphasizing the quarter of a billion dollars, because that is nothing compared to the importance of the science we just lost because someone at NASA decided to pinch a few pennies.

And, of course, the GLORY mission is also scheduled to be launched by the Taurus XL flying death-trap. :-(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_rocket

antunes's picture
I worked on one mission that was meant to launch via Pegasus, called CUBIC (on SAC-B).  It had a similar launch failure... the final stage didn't fully detach, but instead hung off at a 90-degree angle while the satellite tried to inject to final orbit.  So I agree with your assessment on Taurus reliability, but even the Delta IV's success rate is only 8 of 9.  Most rockets tend to have lousy initial success rates.  The question is whether Taurus will either a) improve or b) we stop using them.

That said, I botched my numbers.  While New Horizons cost $205 million to launch and wikipedia lists a Delta IV as $140-170 million to launch.  OCO's launch 'only' cost $54 million, and the OCO itself was $270 million.  So you could argue that the risk assessment versus cost for using Taurus still makes sense:

4 OCOs + Taurus with expected 75% failure = $432 mil per success
9 OCO + $155mil avg Delta IV with expected 88% success = $478 mil per success

But it's very hard to compare statistics with reality... risk is tough to assess because, when it happens, we don't have spares, we lose it all.   But to pay for no risk means we'd never be able to afford anything!

Cheers,
Alex


Hi,

Could they not have used the Delta II which has a 98.5% to 99.25% success rate, depending upon how you count its 1 "partial failed" launch? The weight looks right. My understanding is that it costs about 3 or 4 times per launch what the Taurus XL does. My real complaint about this is not experimenting with less expensive launch systems, but about the fact that they chose such a critically important mission for experimenting with it. The NOAA-N' went up earlier this month. A very redundant and non-essential satellite which just adds a bit of completeness to the already pretty complete coverage of the GOES/POES system. NASA was having trouble making that launch sound exciting on its page on their site. And it went up on... a Delta II. But there was only one OCO! And the A Train plus GOSAT is not really complete without OCO. The data from OCO would have been *so* important.

If it had been a failure of an older, more trusted, less experimental launch system that doomed the OCO, I'd be behind NASA all the way. But under the circumstances... I'm fuming. I understand your statistical view of the situation. But what we really need to be comparing is dollars per value of science. $273 million is a drop on the bucket compared to the *true* value of the science that rested with the OCO.

That said, the fact that Orbital Sciences got the whole project, from building the satellite to launching it, makes me turn my eyes to any Congressmen or Congresswomen who might have been involved. I'm not making any actual accusations, and I really am not familiar enough with this kind of thing to do so. But it's one of those things that "makes me go hmmmm".

"How was this decision made" is a question which needs to be answered quite clearly by this "mishap board". Not just "gee, this happened, which caused the fairing not to separate", but this, this, and this person were responsible for choosing this launch system. And the information needs to be released early enough that it still has relevance to people.

-Steve

antunes's picture
"dollars per value of science" is a great concept.  It's very hard to assign a dollar value to research, though, since you don't know the results until it's over.  In retrospect, WMAP may have been a more significant mission than HST, but just as often a mission can return "sorry, we still don't know"-- in itself useful info, but hard to set a price.

Past that, there's ideology on what science is worth.  To some, science is priceless and we should increase science funding.  To others, science is worthless and should receive a $0 budget.  A third group thinks science is wonderful to the extent it brings jobs to their district.

The statistical view I gave did, indeed, not quantify which mission has 'better science potential'.  But I'm a bit cynical over whether an evaluation of OCO can give you the answers you want.  That's just not how science gets funded.  If it gets funded, it is presumed that the expected science justifies the price tag, that's part of the entire pass/fail evaluation.

Often missions will trim the science to reduce costs in order to get funded at all, a sort of "well, if our big-budget big science isn't justified yet, how about we do a middle-budget middle science mission and, if fruitful, future missions can build on it?"  New Horizons is a great example of how a project continually downscaled itself so it could receive funding.

So the statistical view assumes that all satellites are equal.  There may have been inappropriate assignment of additional risk in the interest of providing Orbital or others with a contact, but that same assignment may have been what enabled the project to get funded at all.

Politically assigned funding is indeed like sausage-making.  All I can do, as a scientist, is say, at the end, whether the sausages that make it to the table are indeed as tasty as promised.


So you feel it is impossible to distinguish the significance of yet another ho-hum weather satellite like NOAA-19, which simply does pretty much the same thing as the other POES satellites have been doing for years, and a mission like OCO which gives us the first real look at the large fluctuations we know exist in the absorption of CO2 by carbon sinks around the world?

I'm sure you already know this, but OCO was not just another satellite to prove global warming, as so many on the internet seem to assume. On average, 50% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere, annually, by human beings is absorbed by carbon sinks like the oceans and plant life. However, the fluctuation from year to year is shocking. Some years, almost all of it is absorbed. Other years, almost nothing. Can we expect the absorption to continue? It's probably the single most important variable in our climate models.

NOAA-19, on the other hand, might occasionally save someone from a rained out picnic.

In the interest of fairness, I should note the love that NOAA-19 received as Lockheed Martin dropped it on the floor:

http://tinyurl.com/co6uqw

Oh well. At least the Japanese are capable of successfully launching important satellites into LEO. I'm hoping that someone can find a way to make the absolute best use of the new GOSAT/Lbuki data now that the U.S. has fumbled the ball, and GOSAT is the only game in town. Clever ways of making better use of the same hardware lies in the realm of human creativity, imagination, and firmware updates to the hardware. Perhaps there is some clever way to improve GOSAT's resolution at the expense of frequency of sampling or something, helping it to fill in for the failed OCO mission.

It will be interesting to see what they do regarding the Glory mission.

Hank's picture
I like how when you see these things today they look like something I could build in my garage, despite being miracles of engineering.     Hollywood can never show what this stuff actually looks like so I assume that's what they prefer old Saturn V-type footage for everything related to space and mostly ignore payload.

The only thing that would have made that pic funnier is two janitors pointing at each other.

antunes's picture
Hmm... NOAA-19 is a $564 million mission, so clearly someone thinks it's worth twice OCO's budget.  That someone would be the DoD.  The DoD space budget alone is larger than NASA's entire budget.  And they have more satellites.  So that's a tough comparison.

Similarly, you could ask if yet another private telecom satellite launched into geosync to bring more cable channels is worth more than OCO.  And the answer is, to telecom companies, yes.  It's a different pool of dollars, different people making the decision.

(There may also be a shortage of available Delta IIs, which the DoD get first priority on.)

And yes, the Japanese space agency rocks.  But even ISAS has launch failures.  One I worked with succeeded brilliantly (ASCA), and one fell into the Bermuda Triangle before I could do my part (Astro-E).  This happens.

I loved your  'drop test' photo, btw.  Ouch.

Anyway, I think you and I may have to just keep violently agreeing.  I agree
OCO deserved better, but an OCO that had a chance to launch on a Taurus
is better then it never being funded at all.  It didn't pay out this
time.  Rockets do blow up.  Hopefully we review, learn and improve.


"""
Anyway, I think you and I may have to just keep violently agreeing.
"""

Probably. Certainly, I've been in positions where I keep trying to agree with someone, and they keep coming back at me, totally oblivious to the fact that we agree. It can get quite frustrating! ;-)

At this point, however, it seems that OCO may simply have served as a distraction from what has turned out to be the really important satellite. That said, I *am* feeling better, as I consider the fortunate existence of the new GOSAT. It only came online 3 weeks ago, so we *will* be getting new and important data. Just not as much as we might have. And there is still plenty of room for coming up with ways to make the most of it now that we know that OCO is DOA.

Anyway, for now I've changed my desktop wallpaper from the artist's conception of OCO in orbit to a real photo of the GOSAT launch. (I've been imagining what an artist's conception of OCO might look like now. It would have to include some crumpled housing panels, the NASA logo, the American flag, some mention of Orbital Sciences Corp, and a few fish. I wish I had more artistic talent.)

I imagine I'll feel better after the Kepler launch.

-Steve

antunes's picture
[Steve wrote] > I've been imagining what an artist's conception of OCO might look like
now. It would have to include some crumpled housing panels, the NASA
logo, the American flag, some mention of Orbital Sciences Corp, and a
few fish.

And penguins!  Everyone loves penguins!

I enjoyed working out numbers and possibilities with you in this thread... a lot of the Taurus vs Delta stuff I had to research just to keep up to speed with your argument points.  So thanks for a great discussion!

See you after Kepler, 5 days and counting...

Well, I went over to read more about the upcoming Glory mission, because I was not very familiar with it, and wanted to learn more, and maybe start forming an opinion on whether it might be a mission more suited to taking a risk on a low-cost launch vehicle like the Taurus XL. Turns out they have a "Send Your Name Around the World" program, where you can register, and somehow your name goes up on the satellite. Once registered, you get an email with a link to where you can generate a Certificate of Participation. All meaningless, but fun. Helps engage the public and all that. When I went to print the certificate, there was a CAPTCHA test where you have to enter a sequence of letters to prove you are a human being. What sequence did I get for the Glory/Taurus XL certificate?

"AFUUK"

Good thing I'm not superstitious. ;-)

Just as a follow up, it seems that back when Glory was canceled, NASA got a letter from Virginia Congressman Frank R. Wolf, whose 3rd largest campaign contributor, coincidentally, happens to be Orbital Sciences Corporation. Also coincidentally, the Glory satellite ended up getting built by Orbital Sciences Corporation, like OCO, and scheduled to be sent up on an Orbital Sciences Taurus rocket... like OCO.

http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/20050725.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00002073&cycle=2008

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.