Skip to comments.
The Shuttle's Achilles Heel: Ideology
TheFactIs.org ^
| Aug. 1, 2005
| Duncan Maxwell Anderson
Posted on 08/04/2005 6:26:28 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
And don't forget today's in-flight epigram from shuttle Commander Eileen Collins:
"We would like to see, from the astronauts' point of view, people take good care of the earth and replace the resources that have been used."
(http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050804/2005-08-04T141203Z_01_N04115231_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SPACE-SHUTTLE-DC.html)
Does that mean she plans to replace thousands of gallons of rocket fuel after they land (God willing) this coming Monday? From where? Pray for these people's safety. I think they'll need it.
To: SamuraiScot
no one knows whether Discovery will catch fire and explode on its return trip to earth, as Columbia did in 2003. I quite reading at this point. Maybe I'll go back, but to get it so wrong at this early stage doesn't bode well.
2
posted on
08/04/2005 6:28:51 PM PDT
by
sionnsar
(†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† || Trad-Ang Ping: I read the dreck so you don't have to || Iran Azadi)
To: SamuraiScot
Wrong from the very first sentence.
The space shuttle Discovery, now in orbit, lost part of its heat-shield as it took off from Cape Canaveral on July 26.
3
posted on
08/04/2005 6:31:32 PM PDT
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: SamuraiScot
Back in 1997, a report on shuttle wear and maintenance by the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., stated that insulating tiles were suddenly flaking off our space shuttles in flight. The engineers suggested that it was because the formula for making them had been changed. For the sake of environmental "friendliness," NASA had stopped using Freon in the production of the tiles.Sorry, but this guy is confused, there are thermal TILES on the orbiter, and there is foam insulation on the external tank. NOT the same thing. Therefore, this entire article is, um, Freon-free Fecal Matter.
4
posted on
08/04/2005 6:33:26 PM PDT
by
Paradox
(John Bolton: "How am I supposed to live without U(n)".)
To: SamuraiScot
You assume that Commander Collins' statement was political and anti-American. You are wrong. While Americans may use our natural resources, we tend to take good care of the planet and not cause widespread destruction. It would be difficult to see any major areas of environmental destruction in the United States from space. This is not true in the rest of the world. The Aral Sea mega-catastrophe and the destruction of the Amazon rain forest would be almost impossible to miss from space. There are hundreds of examples of major devastation to the environment that many countries simply do not care to fix. I presume that she was talking about the Aral Sea disaster because that is the most obvious environmental damage that can be seen from space.
5
posted on
08/04/2005 6:35:24 PM PDT
by
burzum
To: SamuraiScot
Yep. As in the ridiculous ban on DDT, environmentalism causes death.
The same is true of the WTC on 9/11. Both the planes hit the buildings ABOVE the floors where asbestos insulation was used. After the ban they had to use another insulation that, as we saw, didn't quite protect.
6
posted on
08/04/2005 6:36:05 PM PDT
by
Fledermaus
(I wish those on the Left would just do us all a favor and take themselves out of their misery.)
To: SamuraiScot
Let's pray the EPA stays Earthbound.
To: Fledermaus
Asbestos insulation would not have saved the towers unless it was around the steel supports, contrary to the building design. Since neither asbestos nor the replacement insulation were wrapped around the steel supports of the building, you can't really blame the lack of asbestos use to the failure of the buildings. Noone thought a fully fueled plane would ram into a building filled with so much miscellaneous fuel (paper, furniture, etc.). If they had, they would have insulated the steel supports to prevent them from deforming at higher temperatures.
8
posted on
08/04/2005 6:41:27 PM PDT
by
burzum
To: SamuraiScot
Including anti-enviroweenieism does not excuse the sexism and other sins in the article. It is probably racist, fascist, and Darwinian as well.
9
posted on
08/04/2005 6:44:46 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and open the Land Office)
To: SamuraiScot
> ... lost part of its heat-shield as it took off ...
No, it didn't, apart from one minor chip of a tile.
The external tank lost part of it's insulation. That
insulation isn't a "heat shield", part of the thermal
protection system, but is designed to keep the liquid
fuel cold, and prevent condensation and ice on the tank.
The loss of the foam was irrelevant to the ET after
ignition, but did present a potential debris hazard.
Does NASA still have problem with STS? Sure.
But the article is uninformed prattle.
To: burzum
The documentary I saw on the building led me to believe asbestos WAS used on the support beams and on those latticing between the floors.
I saw another program about how they came down that implied the same. But they also said that it would only have extended the time before they fell. Still enough to have gotten more people out.
11
posted on
08/04/2005 6:45:02 PM PDT
by
Fledermaus
(I wish those on the Left would just do us all a favor and take themselves out of their misery.)
To: SamuraiScot
The author seems confused between to tank insulation, and thermal tiles.
The Freon issue is real as far as the tank insulation, but he loses his point in mangling his references.
12
posted on
08/04/2005 6:46:04 PM PDT
by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
To: burzum
Noone thought a fully fueled plane would ram into a building filled with so much miscellaneous fuel (paper, furniture, etc.). If they had, they would have insulated the steel supports to preventThe architects had designed for a Boeing 707 to collide with one tower. But not at 560 mph.
13
posted on
08/04/2005 6:49:04 PM PDT
by
buccaneer81
(Rick Nash will score 50 goals this season ( if there is a season)
To: Fledermaus
That's odd. I've seen documentaries showing that they didn't. But the area that needed to be insulated wasn't the vertical beams (though it would help). It was the horizontal connecting beams that 'unzipped' to cause the buildings destruction. When the horizontal beams became stressed, they detached from the vertical beams holding the building up. This put more stress on the remaining beams on the floor which rapidly failed. While the vertical beams may have been insulated, I very much doubt that the horizontal beams were.
14
posted on
08/04/2005 6:49:29 PM PDT
by
burzum
To: Paradox
Sorry, but this guy is confused, there are thermal TILES on the orbiter, and there is foam insulation on the external tank. NOT the same thing. Therefore, this entire article is, um, Freon-free Fecal Matter. You are right... and wrong. The thrust of the article was that PC environmentalism may be to blame for the destruction of Discovery. This guy has his facts a bit garbled but the basic thesis is sound. In 1997, environmentalists forced the elimination of exterior fuel tank foam that had been made with freon as part of the manufacturing process. The freon made foam did not slough off the tank in large chunks... the replacement "environmentally friendly" foam does!
15
posted on
08/04/2005 6:50:13 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
(tagline now open, please ring bell.)
To: SamuraiScot; sionnsar
aside from the "catch fire and explode" error, the author is constantly confusing the foam insulation on the external tank with the ceramic heat-shield tiles on the orbiter.
while it is true that Challenger was lost and Discovery is in peril due to Greenie interference, it helps NO ONE to so badly misrepresent the facts.
16
posted on
08/04/2005 6:50:38 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
To: Paradox
The author is confused but correct.
The foam was changed for precisely the reason given. The foam now fails at a higher rate than previous for precisely the reason given.
The author went too far with his "no one knows" drama - and confuses the tiles with the foam, thus damaging his credibility. But the core facts are the facts - the foam was redesigned to be more environmentally friendly, with a resultant loss in performance which directly leads to this condition.
Diva's Husband
To: buccaneer81
I am aware of that. The thing that destroyed the buildings, as far as I can recall, is that the heat from the combustion of the remaining jet fuel and the massive amounts of paper, furniture, and other flammables, allowed the deformation of steel beams inside the building. I think it was the inferno that destroyed the building, not the shock of an airplane impact. The buildings took the airplane impacts very well, but they couldn't withstand the fires afterward.
18
posted on
08/04/2005 6:54:36 PM PDT
by
burzum
To: King Prout
crap... COLUMBIA was destroyed on re-entry in 2003.
Challenger was the O-ring burnthrough on launch.
need... more... coffee
19
posted on
08/04/2005 6:55:06 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
To: Fledermaus
The documentary I saw on the building led me to believe asbestos WAS used on the support beams and on those latticing between the floors.
I saw another program about how they came down that implied the same. But they also said that it would only have extended the time before they fell. Still enough to have gotten more people out. Halfway through the construction of the first tower, environmental concerns did indeed force the builder to change the specifications of the sprayed on structural member insullation to something not including asbestos. The second tower was built with no asbestos spray at all, using the replacement. Failure Analysis shows that the CHANGE in insullation coating did have an effect... but had it not been changed it would have only extended the time a couple of hours... and you're right... more people would have been saved...
20
posted on
08/04/2005 6:55:37 PM PDT
by
Swordmaker
(tagline now open, please ring bell.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson