If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program

Danny55

Senior Member.
Could try Commissioner Gordon and Chief O'Hara via the Batphone Deedle dee, deedle dee, deedle dee, deedle dee, deedle deeeeeeee!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Could try Commissioner Gordon and Chief O'Hara via the Batphone Deedle dee, deedle dee, deedle dee, deedle dee, deedle deeeeeeee!
Nah! . . . Just get in touch with your local drug dealer/supplier . . . With a big enough purchase I am sure you can talk to the big boys . . .
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Could try Commissioner Gordon and Chief O'Hara via the Batphone Deedle dee, deedle dee, deedle dee, deedle dee, deedle deeeeeeee!

Watched the new Batman film the other day. Pretty good story and action mix.

Gary Oldman (Gordon) does look like an "OLD" man with all that make- up.

I preferred him when he was this psycho in his early days...

the-firm.jpg
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems people do not have adequate explanations for the lack of temperature increase over the last decade . . . I have an explanation . . .

Comments by Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al.
Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008.


"Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out of date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.


Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.


This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported."


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/...ehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But what makes your explanation more convincing that all the other suggested explanations?
Both are speculation . . . my explanation is elegant and fills the equation with the missing unknown factor . . . it is totally logical and is the simplest possible explanation . . . just because the scientist refuse to consider it doesn't make it wrong . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Both are speculation . . . my explanation is elegant and fills the equation with the missing unknown factor . . . it is totally logical and is the simplest possible explanation . . . just because the scientist refuse to consider it doesn't make it wrong . . .

Well, not really. Your explanation is deus ex machina. You might as well say God did it.

Besides, the lack of air temperature increase does not actually mean the planet is not warming. The real science shows that it IS warming. So no need for a super secret fleet of jets conceived by a mad scientist 50 years ago.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.
Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well, not really. Your explanation is deus ex machina. You might as well say God did it.

Besides, the lack of air temperature increase does not actually mean the planet is not warming. The real science shows that it IS warming. So no need for a super secret fleet of jets conceived by a mad scientist 50 years ago.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.
Content from External Source

Absolutely, there is evidence that heating continues . . . how does that argue against attempts at mitigation????? It motivates it!!!!!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems the scientists can't agree is it China or the never before small volcanic activity in the tropics . . . but they can't prove these volcanoes didn't vent all along . . . what a dilemma . . .

"So now burning coal causes cooling?by Jonathan DuHamel on Jul. 10, 2011, under Climate change, Energy


http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/07/10/so-now-burning-coal-causes-cooling/



Climate modelers are having a problem. The global temperature is not cooperating with the way the modelers say it should if their theories are correct. We learned of their consternation from the “Climategate” emails: Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”


Now the modelers claim that China has saved the day by burning coal. A paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (written, by the way, by two geographers and two economists) claim that increased coal burning in China has put enough sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the air to block the alleged warming effect of carbon dioxide.


The logical, but perhaps absurd, conclusion of this claim is that we should abandon wind turbines and solar arrays, to burn much more coal.


If we stipulate that air quality near Chinese coal-burning power plants is foul, the question remains: is this a local effect or is it world-wide, enough to affect global temperature? Well, apparently the effect is not world-wide. The EPA measures air quality and the graph below shows that in the U.S., sulfur dioxide content of the air has been steadily decreasing. (Source )


Recently, the trend, based on ground-based lidar measurements, has been tentatively attributed to an increase of SO(2) entering the stratosphere associated with coal burning in Southeast Asia. However, we demonstrate with these satellite measurements that the observed trend is mainly driven by a series of moderate but increasingly intense volcanic eruptions primarily at tropical latitudes."
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Absolutely, there is evidence that heating continues . . . how does that argue against attempts at mitigation????? It motivates it!!!!!

You can't have it both ways :) First you suggest lack of heating is evidence of a covert geoengineering, then you say actual heating is evidence of covert geoengineering.

I suspect you could fit anything into your James Bond scheme with a little imagination.

But sure, it motivates mitigation. It does not mean that immediate geoengineering is the best form of mitigation if the side effects of geoengineering are unknown.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Scientist don't agree shocker! I though scientists were all dogmatic and inflexible?

Burning more coal for the short term benefits of global dimming is not a good idea. Sulphur has a vastly shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than CO2.

Oh, and can you please check your sound bites on Skeptical Science first?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm

Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.
Content from External Source
Come on George, this isn't GLP. Don't just pull things out of Google that sound good.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You can't have it both ways :) First you suggest lack of heating is evidence of a covert geoengineering, then you say actual heating is evidence of covert geoengineering.

I suspect you could fit anything into your James Bond scheme with a little imagination.

But sure, it motivates mitigation. It does not mean that immediate geoengineering is the best form of mitigation if the side effects of geoengineering are unknown.

I never said it was the best solution . . . I am saying a group of egomaniacal powerful scientists and politicians like Edward Teller and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex jumped the gun and proceeded to engage in ICAAIP . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well, not really. Your explanation is deus ex machina. You might as well say God did it.

Besides, the lack of air temperature increase does not actually mean the planet is not warming. The real science shows that it IS warming. So no need for a super secret fleet of jets conceived by a mad scientist 50 years ago.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.
Content from External Source

"deus ex machina" . . . sure just like those previously unaccounted for, covert volcanic venting all of a sudden became the answer to NOAA scientists as a stratospheric sulfur source . . . except most would stay in the troposphere . . . LoL!!!!
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I never said it was the best solution . . . I am saying a group of egomaniacal powerful scientists and politicians like Edward Teller and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex jumped the gun and proceeded to engage in ICAAIP . . .

More statements of fact while refusing to provide anything but belief and opinion as evidence.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Scientist don't agree shocker! I though scientists were all dogmatic and inflexible?

Burning more coal for the short term benefits of global dimming is not a good idea. Sulphur has a vastly shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than CO2.

Oh, and can you please check your sound bites on Skeptical Science first?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm

Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.
Content from External Source
Come on George, this isn't GLP. Don't just pull things out of Google that sound good.
That's funny . . . I thought I was quoting [h=3]So now burning coal causes cooling?[/h]by Jonathan DuHamel on Jul. 10, 2011, underClimate change, Energy or Dr David Whitehouse . . . ????
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I am saying a group of egomaniacal powerful scientists and politicians like Edward Teller and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex jumped the gun and proceeded to engage in ICAAIP . . .

George, this is a big claim you have made. but the data says otherwise, and you have never addressed THESE ISSUES.

The fact that you haven't been willing to discuss or argue against any of this tells me that you know better.

Sad to say it, but when you lie to us its one thing, but when you fail in this way, we can see you are either

A. Simply lying to yourself, which has horrible internal consequences.
or
B. Making these claims for some other ulterior motive, perhaps to satisfy someone else or some perceived gain.

Either way, we know you know by your actions as I mentioned above, and it's actually sad to see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, this is a big claim you have made. but the data says otherwise, and you have never addressed THESE ISSUES.

The fact that you haven't been willing to discuss or argue against any of this tells me that you know better.

Sad to say it, but when you lie to us its one thing, but when you fail in this way, we can see you are either

A. Simply lying to yourself, which has horrible internal consequences.
or
B. Making these claims for some other ulterior motive, perhaps to satisfy someone else or some perceived gain.

Either way, we know you know by your actions as I mentioned above, and it's actually sad to see.

What data says otherwise??? Please specify?? And what have I refused to discuss?? Please specify as well? To my knowledge no one on my Threads had ever presented the Chart you are referring about . . . AOD, TSI, and MEI are parameters used to correlate with temperature records to make assumptions regarding climate change . . . there is significant discussion about what is up, what is down, and what is flat . . . I talk about the amount of aerosols (sulfur in particular) in the stratosphere . . . aerosols are the only measure that has the least controversy . . . known episodic significant loadings have universally shown cooling responses . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think the following paper conflicts with your conclusions from the 2007 study of AOD you cited . . . "Long-Term Satellite Record RevealsLikely Recent Aerosol Trend" Michael I. Mishchenko,* Igor V. Geogdzhayev, William B. Rossow, Brian Cairns,Barbara E. Carlson, Andrew A. Lacis, Li Liu, Larry D. Travis
http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/cappa/ECI289A_Fa07/Mishchenko2007.pdf



--------

The Persistently Variable “Background” Stratospheric Aerosol Layer and Global Climate Change


Published Online July 21 2011


Science 12 August 2011:


Vol. 333 no. 6044 pp. 866-870


DOI: 10.1126/science.1206027
Report


Recent measurements demonstrate that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer is persistently variable rather than constant, even in the absence of major volcanic eruptions. Several independent data sets show that stratospheric aerosols have increased in abundance since 2000. Near-global satellite aerosol data imply a negative radiative forcing due to stratospheric aerosol changes over this period of about –0.1 watt per square meter, reducing the recent global warming that would otherwise have occurred. Observations from earlier periods are limited but suggest an additional negative radiative forcing of about –0.1 watt per square meter from 1960 to 1990. Climate model projections neglecting these changes would continue to overestimate the radiative forcing and global warming in coming decades if these aerosols remain present at current values or increase.

S. Solomon1,2,*,
J. S. Daniel1,
R. R. Neely III1,2,5,6,
J.-P. Vernier3,4,
E. G. Dutton5,
L. W. Thomason3
1Chemical Sciences Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.
2Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.
3NASA Langley Research Centre, Hampton, VA, USA.
4Laboratoire Atmosphères, Milieux, Observations Spatiales, CNRS–Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers, Université de Versailles St Quentin, Université de Paris 6, France.
5Global Monitoring Division, NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA.
6Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
↵*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: susan.solomon@colorado.edu
Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Ironic isn't it (The Glory Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor)-the one instrument that could have answered many of the needed answers about aerosols possible origins and climatic effects was a Raytheon project . . . and . . . was somehow lost by a failed launch!!! What are the odds?????
---------

Raytheon’s Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor


Raytheon’s Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS) will measure aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere to provide scientists and policy makers a better understanding of how those aerosols affect global climate change. Comprising 161 optical elements, including six precision-aligned telescopes that analyze light of varying wavelengths, the APS will make comprehensive measurements from multiple viewing angles in multiple spectral bands.


“The Glory Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor can distinguish between various types of aerosols and reveal the different role each plays in either warming or cooling our planet,” said Bill Hart, vice president, Space Systems. “Since black carbon aerosols generally contribute to warming, and sulfate aerosols to cooling, the concentrations of these aerosols and others must be determined to ensure accurate climate modeling.”


How will this help scientists understand the impact of global climate change?


Both natural and man-made aerosols are important constituents of the atmosphere that affect global temperature. Yet they remain poorly quantified and, according to NASA scientists, represent the largest uncertainty regarding climate change.


“Because these particles are transported over long distances by winds, their effects on climate are best studied through space-based observations,” said Hart. “With the information provided by the APS, policy leaders can make better-informed decisions with regard to addressing seasonal and regional climate change events.”


Unique sensor capabilities help to reveal the impact of atmospheric aerosols on climate


Raytheon’s Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor was designed to collect global aerosol data for climate scientists during NASA’s 3-year Glory mission. It is the most advanced polarimeter ever to fly in space — and the only instrument able to distinguish various types of natural aerosols from the man-made black carbon and sulfate aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere.


http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/gloryaps/

On 4 March 2011, the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS) was lost as a consequence of the failed launch of the Glory Mission. On 6 March 2011, Dr. Michael Freilich, Director of the Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, directed the Glory APS Science Team to perform a comprehensive study intended to develop and evaluate the science rationale for an APS reflight.
http://glory.giss.nasa.gov/
Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Should we try again . . .

AEROSOL AND CLOUD MEASUREMENTS FROM SPACE 21 July 2011
Charge to the APS-2 Science Team and Review Panel
On 4 March 2011, the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS) was lost as a consequence of the failed launch of the Glory Mission. On 6 March 2011, Dr. Michael Freilich, Director of the Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, di- rected the Glory APS Science Team to perform a comprehensive study intended to de- velop and evaluate the science rationale for an APS reflight. This study was to be per- formed with the help of a panel of outside experts, and its results were to be summarized in the form of a white paper focusing on the following topics:
● What is the current state of the art and the uncertainties associated with estimates of aerosol radiative forcings based on existing satellite data and models?
● What are or will be the critical science questions concerning aerosol effects on the Earth system currently and extending to ~2020?
● What are the limitations of our current and confirmed space-borne aerosol observa- tional capabilities to address these questions?
● Can an APS-2 sensor (a near-carbon copy of the Glory APS) add significantly to the aerosol retrieval capability of current satellite instruments and those expected to be launched before 2015?
● What are the gaps in our knowledge of aerosols that APS-2 would fill?
● What is the key aerosol and cloud information expected to be provided by APS-2 ob- servations that can be used by process models and climate models to improve projec- tions of changes in the Earth system?
● Can formation-flying enhance the ability of APS-2 to address these questions?
● What is the likely impact of postponement of an advanced aerosol polarimetry mis-
sion for ~10 years?
This document describes “The real problems to be solved, and how the APS-2 mission will advance the solution, making unique and essential contributions.”
http://glory.giss.nasa.gov/APS-2_Report.pdf
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems NASA and others understand the void in the equations . . . a void that an ICAAIP can easily capitalize on . . . as long as one doesn't greatly exceed the background clutter . . . around 1-1.5 Tg a year would be almost undetectable without this new technology not to be launched until 2015 maybe!!!!! If we began injections slowly in the 1990s it is just background noise now . . .

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

"continued failure to quantify the specific origins of the large aerosol forcings is unten-able, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future Earth-system change. ". page 27

http://glory.giss.nasa.gov/APS-2_Report.pdf


 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yet again there is no evidence of injections!
Yet again, all the evidence presented by this Forum fails to disprove such a program may exists . . . despite all your attempts to imply such evidence exists . . .
 

Des O

New Member
Yet again you can not prove a negative!! This has been stated over and over again. You can't prove something doesn't exist. You must provide evidence that geoengineering exists George.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
More statements of fact while refusing to provide anything but belief and opinion as evidence.
Belief and opinion is all that a scientist sometimes begins with . . . until they can alert enough other investigators who will join and engage in the search . . . refusal to consider a plausible explanation for the existence of increased stratospheric aerosols (anthropomorphic) because of cultural bias is not what I call an exhaustive process . . . the possibility that people and agencies could be doing everything to hide their activities does not compute to most scientists and therefore since they think that such concealment is not possible or logical, IMO they say to themselves . . . I won't look for evidence of such activity . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yet again you can not prove a negative!! This has been stated over and over again. You can't prove something doesn't exist. You must provide evidence that geoengineering exists George.
The premiss of this Thread is a hypothetical ICAAIP which could operate without detection using sulfur compounds injected into the lower stratosphere . . . I supplied significant information to that end . . . You are free to accept its plausibility or reject it . . . it has stimulated significant discussion . . . to me that is success . . .
 

Des O

New Member
George everything is plausible until proven to be reality. My cat is actually a miniature unicorn in disguise is plausible. It is incredibly unlikely but is plausible. SO you have stated geoengineering is plausible, we agree it is plausible. The end.....provide some proof it is happening and then we can talk.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George everything is plausible until proven to be reality. My cat is actually a miniature unicorn in disguise is plausible. It is incredibly unlikely but is plausible. SO you have stated geoengineering is plausible, we agree it is plausible. The end.....provide some proof it is happening and then we can talk.
I feel the evidence presented in this thread . . . is way more convincing than your "miniature unicorn" theory . . . it is your right to disagree and I disagree with you likewise . . .
 

Spongebob

Active Member
I feel the evidence presented in this thread . . . is way more convincing than your "miniature unicorn" theory . . . it is your right to disagree and I disagree with you likewise . . .

I don`t feel that any "evidence" you have presented in this thread proves/demonstrates that anything at all "is" happening.

The most important evidence (or possibility, which is your practice) presented in this thread is that "they" are most likely operating a fleet of sulphur spraying supertankers, from a top secret private island base.

Prove me wrong. You can`t!

"They" even provided predictive programming for this over the years on films and TV.

They are laughing at us and there`s nothing we can do about it. Boy do we all feel helpless now...
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don`t feel that any "evidence" you have presented in this thread proves/demonstrates that anything at all "is" happening.

The most important evidence (or possibility, which is your practice) presented in this thread is that "they" are most likely operating a fleet of sulphur spraying supertankers, from a top secret private island base.

Prove me wrong. You can`t!

"They" even provided predictive programming for this over the years on films and TV.

They are laughing at us and there`s nothing we can do about it. Boy do we all feel helpless now...

It need not be a secret base . . . Just a secure area within a pre-existing air operation . . . near a rail head or possibly a pipeline . . . 27 flights a day or half that with flights shared with one or two sister locations . . . a good cover could be an air transport hub . . . like UPS, FedX, or smaller operation . .
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
It need not be a secret base . . . Just a secure area within a pre-existing air operation . . . near a rail head or possibly a pipeline . . . 27 flights a day or half that with flights shared with one or two sister locations . . . a good cover could be an air transport hub . . . like UPS, FedX, or smaller operation . .


It would probably need extremely high security, undoubtably guarded exclusively by robotic dogs and cats.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
The complete lack of evidence to substantiate any part of this robotic dog theory is, of course, a testament to the theories elegance. It also demonstrates that the level of secrecy for this deep black "robotic dog" operation is on par with the Manhattan project and the development of the stealth fighter.
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
But can it be any coincidence that raytheon is deeply involved in robotics technology?
To quote from their website: "Raytheon provides world-class expertise and thought leadership in robotics technology. We are a research and development leader in designing and building advanced robotic systems for a variety of applications."
http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rids/businesses/gis/strategic_solutions/robotics/index.html

I think we need look no further for substantiation of the robotic canine and feline guardianship of these bases.
They have been in development for some time.
It's easy enough to read between the Lions.

animatronics-lion-01.jpg
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I feel the evidence presented in this thread . . . . . .

Except you have only presented "evidence" in this thread of what YOU would do if you wanted to carry out this operation.

As always with these chemtrail stories you have not presented anything other than speculation that anyone else is doing anything of the sort.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member


Third time's the charm . . . incompetence personified . . . seems beyond even the government to use the same failed company . . . unless you have a reason to make all climate analysis systems fall into the ocean . . . LoL!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ani0luPe7qc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Both the rocket and the satellite were built by Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va. . . . and they still have the contract for the next launch . . . !!!!!


http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/0...llites-crash-leaves-nasa-devastate-66697.html


http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110404-nasa-options-recovering-glory.html


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


http://www.spacenews.com/launch/110301-nasas-glory-satellite-lost-taurus-return-flight-mission.html



Fri, 4 March, 2011
Taurus Rocket Fairing Glitch Dooms NASA’s Glory Mission
By Turner Brinton




NASA's Glory climate-monitoring satellite
Enlarge Image
Updated at 1:13pm


WASHINGTON — NASA’s $424 million Glory climate observation satellite was lost in a March 4 launch attempt from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., after the shroud designed to protect the spacecraft during its climb to orbit atop a Taurus XL rocket failed to separate, agency officials said.


The Taurus XL, built by Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., was making its return to flight two years after a similar fairing problem destroyed NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) satellite. After replacing the fairing-separation mechanism thought to be the culprit in the OCO launch failure, the government-industry team believed the Glory launch had “an acceptable level of risk,” Rich Straka, Orbital’s deputy general manager for launch operations, said during a March 4 press conference at Vandenberg.


The Glory satellite, also built by Orbital, was designed to operate in polar orbit to monitor aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere and continue NASA’s uninterrupted 30-year history of observing solar energy output. It carried the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor, built by Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems of El Segundo, Calif., and the Total Irradiance Monitor, built by the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics.


No issues arose during preparations for the launch, and the rocket lifted off from the launch pad successfully, Omar Baez, NASA’s Glory launch director, said during the press conference. The Taurus XL’s first- and second-stage motors burned properly, and the third stage ignited two minutes and 45 seconds into the flight. The clamshell-style payload fairing was supposed to jettison six seconds after third-stage ignition, but rocket performance data indicates that never happened, Baez said. Glory splashed down somewhere in the southern Pacific Ocean, he said.


“It’s a very difficult situation we’re in here,” Baez said.


After an extensive investigation of the OCO launch failure, a decision was made to replace the Taurus XL’s fairing-separation mechanism, a combustion system designed to create hot gas that pushes the pistons that eject the two halves of the nose cone, said Ron Grabe, the executive vice president and general manager for Orbital’s launch systems group. It was replaced by a system that uses a bottle of cold, pressurized nitrogen to drive the pistons, he said. The cold gas system was successfully used in all three launches of the Orbital-built Minotaur 4 rocket last year, he said.


“We really went into this flight confident that we had nailed the fairing issue,” Grabe said. “It’s not an understatement to say that tonight we’re all pretty devastated.”


Meanwhile, Orbital is building an OCO replacement for NASA and in June was awarded a $70 million contract to launch the satellite on a Taurus XL. Depending on the findings of Glory’s Mishap Investigation Board, the agency may have to change that plan, said Michael Luther, deputy associate administrator for programs in NASA’s Science Mission Directorate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Except you have only presented "evidence" in this thread of what YOU would do if you wanted to carry out this operation.

As always with these chemtrail stories you have not presented anything other than speculation that anyone else is doing anything of the sort.

There will be no direct evidence . . . the people who planned, deployed and manage the program are some of the most intelligent and secrecy savvy people who have ever lived . . .
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
There will be no direct evidence . . . the people who planned, deployed and manage the program are some of the most intelligent and secrecy savvy people who have ever lived . . .

...so you believe.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
And this is the same government you lambast in the post above for screwing things up - they are so good that they can hide every single piece of evidence of a worldwide operation that would be using thousands of people and affects tens-of-thousands of aircraft, through 3 different administrations, screws up 2 wars, doesn't notice the approaching financial crisis, and generally si as incompetent as any government anywhere.

Yet you claim this same government would be able to totally hide every single piece of verifiable physical evidence - from chemicals (so well hidden you can't even find them in the air!), to load sheets, to aircraft design and specification changes, to eyewitness testimony and everything else besides??
 
Top