Talk:Orbiting Carbon Observatory

Access to project website may be restricted
The project's official website (listed first under External links) is giving me an HTTP 403 error. I cannot identify any technical problem on my end that is causing this. I am on the California Institute of Technology campus, but I have just had someone from my home confirm this problem too. It is likely that either access to the website is restricted to authorized JPL users/locations or there is a problem with the server.

I think this adversely affects the viability of the link as an external link or reference. What is the best way to deal with this? (Some kind of template tag?) 131.215.159.229 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When I clicked today on the link you give above, I got a page staring with the text, "The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) is the latest Earth orbiting mission sponsored by...." If you didn't get that page, then it might have been some temporary trouble.  As for your question, dead link might be a template you could use.... (sdsds - talk) 23:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. The website is working now. I had seen dead link used elsewhere but wasn't sure whether it was appropriate for the situation (and of course now it isn't). 131.215.159.229 (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Landed or crashed?
The lead says landed. Should it say crashed or something?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Landed" is occuring within a quoted statement so we shouldn't change the wording there unless we want to remove the quoted statement entirely. Are primary reliable sources in agreement as to what to call this or are they in disagreement? Jon (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Crashed is better.There will be sources ava. for it after some time.User:Yousaf465 (talk)


 * I switched it to crashed earlier. I found sources without difficulty. If you find any sources that describe it as "corkscrewing out of the sky", I think it would really juice up the article.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

O.k then.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Any threat while crashing?
Did the rocket's re-entry into atmoshphere and subsequent crashing into some (uncontrolled) place imposed any threat for sometime ??What damage it could have caused on area it crashed.? If yes, should this be introduced into the article? 203.122.33.194 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Maddy,India

Sabotage
Seems ripe for conspiracy theories. Many nations and industries would benefit (short term) from a lack of accurate global warming data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.43.65 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OCO Re-direct
Note that OCO is a re-direct here. However, please note what Obama says is the term the War on Terror should be called?? Its initials are OCO, and does anyone think the abbreviation is common enough that it makes sense to remove the re-direct to make a dis-ambiguation page?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I have no idea what you are talking about, I am inclined to say no. -- G W … 21:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2
The mission repeat will be launched this summer: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Fantastic, just under three months. At some point I'd suggest separating these into two pages, but there's no rush. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Instead of creating 2 articles, and since the satellites/mission are identical, how about placing the incident in the History section and updating the Infobox with the future launch data? CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * They are both distinct objects. It seems inappropriate to so completely marginalise the first one; it's not like it was a paper mission. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory_2. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Orbiting Carbon Observatory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orbiting Carbon Observatory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307191400/http://nasascience.nasa.gov/programs/earth-system-science-pathfinder to http://nasascience.nasa.gov/programs/earth-system-science-pathfinder

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Faulty Aluminum
I read in the news today that the U.S. Justice Department entered an agreement with the company that made the fairings to pay restitution for test result fraud. see https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/aluminum-extrusion-manufacturer-agrees-pay-over-46-million-defrauding-customers-including

Since I work for Northrop Grumman, which now owns Orbital, I don't want to make the edit myself. (I don't have anything to do with that part of the business, but still feels like a COI to me.) I think this info should be included in the "Original Launch" section to explain the fairing failure. Psu256 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply 2-MAY-2019

 * To expedite your request, please provide the desired claim in the form of a verbatim statement which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer. The exact location where the desired claim is to be placed should also be described, as shown in the example below.

 Please add the following claim, as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section: Using as the reference:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."

Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the verbatim text and the placement location. Regards, Spintendo  08:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
Ok, let's try this again. (As an engineer, reading about engineering failures is an interest of mine.) Please add, at the end of the "Original Launch" section: "On 23 April 2019, the U.S. Justice Department announced that a settlement had been reached with the manufacturer of the faulty fairings. It was revealed that the company, Sapa Profiles Inc., had falsified test records over the course of many years (1996-2015). In 2017, a testing lab supervisor was sentenced to three years in prison and a $170000 fine for his role in the falsifications."

Psu256 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply 2-MAY-2019
Spintendo 16:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)