On September 6, while performing work on the NOAA-N Prime spacecraft, being prepared to launch in 2008 for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the satellite was dropped.

passive voice is the best way to buck-pass while sounding pro and scientific

a saudi official posted:
that, habibi, was the hand of God striking down the evil that you and your colleagues have unleashed

shennong posted:
so im looking at the oco-2 incident report summary and all of the listed failure modes look really unlikely, is that the first taurus that had a fairing problem?

i just looked it up cause i never read it. i scanned the executive summary.

honestly it's a very rare launch vehicle failure (i dont think i've heard of fairing separation or payload ring separation issues as opposed to turbomachinery, stage separation) so all of them are very unlikely and get to be an issue of parts failure or not being able to survive the launch environment (high freq, high amp shocks and loads). i really have no idea and it's pretty scary. parts failure is the last causes of spacecraft or launch vehicle failures. it's typically poor engineering and human error.

tpaine posted:
i want to die

yeah

guidoanselmi posted:

shennong posted:
so im looking at the oco-2 incident report summary and all of the listed failure modes look really unlikely, is that the first taurus that had a fairing problem?

i just looked it up cause i never read it. i scanned the executive summary.

honestly it's a very rare launch vehicle failure (i dont think i've heard of fairing separation or payload ring separation issues as opposed to turbomachinery, stage separation) so all of them are very unlikely and get to be an issue of parts failure or not being able to survive the launch environment (high freq, high amp shocks and loads). i really have no idea and it's pretty scary. parts failure is the last causes of spacecraft or launch vehicle failures. it's typically poor engineering and human error.

fucking illuminati

Squalid posted:
Ah yes. Some guy said a thing. A substantive argument against climate modeling. If you just want some to bitch about Flannery why don't you go to Dnd I'm sure Duck Monster will be happy to respond. If I remember right he had a nice long rant last month in the climate thread about Murdoch's media slandering the fellow. Otherwise post some science to criticize, I'm not wading through anymore rightwing blogs looking for the single kernel of truth buried under all your shit

He’s not “some guy”, he’s Australia’s government-appointed climate commissioner.

I don’t need the Murdoch press to tell me him and his models are wrong, I can look out the window or take a walk in the park. If the country’s pre-eminent scientist on this issue not only gets it wrong, but gets it so SPECTACULARLY wrong then I’m going to have to assume the models are intrinsically flawed and unreliable.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

However, Whitehouse explains further, the IPCC had predicted a temperature increase of of 0.2°C per decade because of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. But this warming has not occurred. ‘We are now at a point where temperature stagnation is dominating the climate development. One cannot ignore that, even if is not 30 years,’ Whitehouse believes. ‘It is now time for the IPCC and the scientific community to recognize the temperature stagnation as reality.“

fape posted:
so, if something consistently produces false results, and has never had a record of producing true results, why should you put your trust into this thing. please explain this to me

um, you're talking to a forum of Marxists?

ialdabaoth posted:

o ya, i forgot about the drought that's wasting the entire first world right now, that a climate change expert predicted 5 years ago.

AmericanNazbro posted:

fape posted:
so, if something consistently produces false results, and has never had a record of producing true results, why should you put your trust into this thing. please explain this to me

this is a good argument for scrolling past your posts in this thread my guy

"this is a good argument, guy who i am now going to say only ever makes shitty arguments"

ialdabaoth posted:

fape posted:

ialdabaoth posted:

o ya, i forgot about the drought that's wasting the entire first world right now, that a climate change expert predicted 5 years ago.

well shit i am accountable for what some guy said five years ago and i have totally dropped the ball

i dont think anyone said anything 5 years ago. i was just making a comment on how unaccountable climate change experts are!! and also making a point, which still stands

fape posted:
iwc isn't pointing out that a few people ahve been wrong about climate change, and therefore all hypotheses about climate change are wrong, all, hes pointing out that there is no one who has ever been right. there has obviously never, never ever, ever been a correct prediction of devastating events due to climate change, because if there were one, the world as a whole would be in a horrible condition (which it is not). like, seriously, get this, folks

You are making the mistake of conflating statements made by advocacy groups and public statements meant to draw attention to political issues with scientific hypotheses. The scientific evidence may strongly suggest that the climate is warming, and that the warming is going to cause a drier climate in Australia, and that in the future water supplies will be inadequate to meet projected future demand. A scientist can see such evidence and decide we have to act, and if they work in a political capacity, like Flannery, it is no more surprising to hear them spouting off alarmist rhetoric than it is to hear the right cry about socialism. I have a sneaking suspicion those models mentioned in Flannery's say very little about changes in Australia's climate anytime this decade. Much more likely they just suggest a gradually drying over the next 100 years. This shit isn't magic, it's basically a bunch of excel spreadsheets.

There are lots of climate predictions that seem to be holding up fape. At this point it's obvious the Arctic will be ice free during summers sometime this century, idk if you would consider that a disaster. Today if you are an ecologist hoping to protect the habitat of an endangered species, you wouldn't just consider where it is currently located. Instead you would have to try and predict where the habitat is going to move. Unfortunately if you want to protect a species that occurs only in rare discontinuous high elevation zones like cloud forests or alpine tundras there isn't much we can do, global warming is generally expected to raise the elevation level at which such habitats are expected to occur, meaning we're currently seeing them evaporate off the tops of mountains all over the world. I'm sure IWC doesn't care, but it's not like climate change hasn't had any demonstrable effect on our world so far.