Pull plug on NASA

WorldNetDaily ^ | 29 July 2005 | Joseph Farah

[Red6]

NASA has been trying to make the space shuttle safe since its negligence killed seven brave astronauts in 2003.

Unfortunately, they must not have many WorldNetDaily readers at the space agency.

The Discovery is orbiting the Earth right now with tile damage caused by the same problem that obliterated the Columbia upon re-entry.

No one is certain how extensive that damage is and whether it threatens the crew.

But it should never have gotten this far.

It was NASA's environmental concerns that resulted in the tragic deaths of the Columbia crew. And that wasn't the first time a space shuttle crew was lost because of misguided regulations and fads.

In fact, NASA's own investigations strongly suggest something very similar occurred back in 1986 resulting in the destruction of the Challenger and its entire crew.

Long before the space agency officially blamed the Feb. 1 disintegration of the Columbia upon re-entry – on foam insulation breaking free from the external tank and slamming into the leading edge of the left wing – I reported NASA knew of a continuing problem with foam insulation dating back six years earlier. The new foam had been chosen for shuttle missions, I reported – the day after the Columbia tragedy – because it was "environmentally friendly."

More than eight years ago, NASA investigated extensive thermal tile damage on the space shuttle Columbia as a direct result of the shedding of external tank insulation on launch. The problems began when the space agency switched to materials and parts that were considered more "environmentally friendly," according to a NASA report obtained by WorldNetDaily.

In 1997, during the 87th space shuttle mission, similar tile damage was experienced during launch when the external tank foam crashed into some tiles during the stress of takeoff. Fortunately, the damage was not catastrophic. But investigators then noted the damage followed changes in the methods of "foaming" the external tank – changes mandated by concerns about being "environmentally friendly."

Here's what that report said: "During the ... mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of 'foaming' the external tank had been used for this mission and the (previous) mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter."

While the NASA report on that earlier Columbia mission ended on a positive note, suggesting changes would be made in procedures to avoid such problems in the future, obviously the problems were never corrected.

The original report is still there on NASA's website for any other enterprising journalist to go see for himself or herself.

Worse, this was apparently not the first shuttle mission and crew destroyed because of concerns about the environmental friendliness of certain products used by NASA.

Anyone alive in 1986 likely remembers where he or she was when the Challenger exploded shortly after launch. And everyone who followed the story of the investigation of the Challenger disaster knows the official findings – a problem with O-rings.

But what exactly was the problem with the O-rings?

In 1977, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of asbestos in a wide range of paint products. NASA, through the mid-1980s, had used a commercially available, "off-the-shelf" putty manufactured by the Fuller O'Brien Paint Company in San Francisco to help seal the shuttle field joints. But the paint company, fearful of legal action as a result of the asbestos ban, stopped manufacturing the putty. NASA had to look for another solution.

Six months before the Challenger disaster, a July 23, 1985, memo by budget analyst Richard Cook warned about new burn-through problems with O-rings.

"Engineers have not yet determined the cause of the problem," he wrote. "Candidates include the use of a new type of putty (the putty formerly used was removed from the market by NASA because it contained asbestos)."

Indeed, NASA began buying putty from a New Jersey company. The experts working with it noted that it did not seem to seal the joints as well as the old putty, but they continued to use it anyway.

I wrote back in 2003: "As long as I am the only one reporting that NASA has for 20 years put petty 'environmental correctness' ahead of the lives of astronauts, I do not expect future missions to be any safer."

I stand by those words.

Pray for the safe return of the Discovery crew.

And pray that the American people pull the plug on NASA before it puts any more brave Americans at risk for their lives because of petty and meaningless concerns about the "environment."

[GladesGuru]

In a land of vidiots produced by a school system run by and for marxism impaired teachers, Farah has somehow managed to build a news source that is willing to publish that which the LameStream media won't.

Give Farah credit where it is due. The foam problem has a clear component tracable to the different characteristics of reon blown foam compared to the PC mandated repalcement form.

As this is a de facto connection between the enviro whacko positions and the deaths of the seven aboard the shuttle AND a clear placing of blame on the enviro-whackos, I feel Farah deserves an "Atta Boy" award for saying what the LameStream media refused to say.

Might I suggest a regular reading of WorldNetDaily.com? You will, however, find that often it is FreeRepublic.com where you can first read about news items.

[AndyJackson]

We all look forward to Dr. Griffin's efforts to reform NASA and return it to its former glory.

I note Dr. Griffin's academic credentials listed in his official biography for the education of my fellow Freepers:

[Dr. Griffin] received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in Aerospace Science from Catholic University of America; a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Maryland; a master's degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California; a master's degree in Applied Physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in Business Administration from Loyola College; and a master's degree in Civil Engineering from George Washington University.

[Red6]

I have no idea who you're talking about but I don't see anyone screaming.

Red6

[Red6]

I don't know anything about him; but why is he an idiot?

Red6

[Red6]

:)

"SAVE A ROCK--(Then throw it at a environmentalist.)" You say.

-------

I saw this one at the gun show yesterday and it made me laugh.

"When the last tree is gone, you can wipe you @ss on the spotted owl."

Red6

[Red6]

In the government they never fire those responsible, only some poor stooge who has little control over what happened. Then they create another “office” or “system” which is supposed to make it all better. After something goes wrong you must show action, some sort of solution, even if it’s eyewash.

To sloppy to have accountability, big and anonymous, bureaucratic and slow this giant EEO employer is not a fine example of efficiency. It’s effective some times, but not efficient ever!

Red6

[Red6]

Hmmmm,

So the whole article (Putty and all) is irrelevant basically?

Red6

[Red6]

Anyone who thinks they can compete against the US mail service is also an idiot. You know who said that to whom years ago?

I'm not stating NASA is stupid, but they are a government organization. In the government decisions are often not made on what is better, cheaper, faster to deliver. No, sometimes POLITICS creep in. Do we have enough women pilots? Is that putty (If that's at all the problem?) to some EPA standard? In what state will it be made? Hmmm, will I be able to get a job working for "XYZ" if I award them this contract? Will my branch or section loose influence if we don’t procure this or that (Turf preservation)?

Sometimes the government is incredibly inefficient or even corrupt. All those bogus made up variables that get in the way, but are dictated on you result in stupid outcomes at times. You end up with women in flying positions who do not have complete control of the aircraft because they are too small (UH-1 had that issue years ago), but get waivers because, well; we don't have enough women aviators and our “quota” now euphemistically called an Army “goal” has not been met. What spikes my curiosity here is if people died because we are trying to be "environmental." Because something so asinine could happen!

If you think politics don't influence the decision making process then you're A) Naïve B) Naïve C) Naïve

Why do you think CA has windmills all over the place, had the money to expand it’s power grid for years yet is buying power from other states and has had brown-outs in the recent past (LA area)? Sometimes politics get in the way of common sense; build a nuclear power plant. Just because there are a bunch of highly educated people there who individually have a lot of common sense, does not mean that the organization always collectively acts that way.

Red6

[Mr. K]

do some web research- there is a lot out there on this topic with some compelling arguments.

[tm22721]

The definiton of 'technology' is 'something that doesn't work yet'.

Much of the shuttle is still technology because aeronautical engineering has not advanced all that much in 25 years compared to electronics. Probably because many aeronautical engineers were laid off at the end of the Apollo missions in the early 70s, and the industry has not recovered since.

BUMP

[pennyfarmer]

When I lived in Montana during the whold spotted owl thing there were lots of people with the bumper stickers that read "Spotted Owl Tastes Like Chicken"

[enviros_kill]

YEAH!