Posted on 07/30/2005 3:11:28 PM PDT by 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."
It's Clinton fault (hildabeast or billary or sexpot...)
What are Joseph Farah's credentials again to critique the work of rocket scientists?
The tanks are not reused. I believe that they break up on re-entry.
Everybody on this thread who thinks NASA is either A) incompetent or B) should be shut down, is both A) ignorant and B) an idiot.
The putty aspect has little to do with the entire problem of a underdesigned clevis joint. The machining tolerances on the segments were amazing, I want to say .0030 of an inch (I don't remember now) They have fixtures that were used to "Round" the segments prior to mating them and even then it was a chore getting them together perfectly.
The reason Challenger exploded was do to the shrinking of the rubber o-rings inside of the grooves which allowed hot gases to bypass them thus spraying a hot flame directly into the external tank. Period.
The O-rings were cold, which made them inflexible enough that they could not conform to and block their spaces.
LOL....most people believe Nasa builds the space shuttle. Ignorant is the keyword here. ;-)
Right. I phrased my reply incorrectly.
Ding!!!! We have a winner!!!!
The Next Era of Space Travel
Who remembers the excitement of the Mercury Program? The challenge put forth by JFK to put a man on the moon before 1970? Those were the times of innovation, experimentation, and risks yet unaccounted.
Having been raised in that Space Age environment, I watched with white-knuckle anticipation of each and every launch, the highs of the Mercury and Gemini programs and the despair and lows of Apollo 1 to the elation of landing on the moon, and the human triumph of Apollo 13.
I have watched as the industries grown from the space program, home PC's, cell phones, almost all the electronics today, have taken over the world and made it a little smaller. It put me on a path into an industry I have enjoyed for near 30 years of my life and would not have had except for the space program motivating me to this wonderous industry of electronics.
I watched as Enterprise, that Space Shuttle test vehicle, lifted off the back of a 747 to test the possibilities of a recoverable vehicle to go into space and return again safely. The technologies that came from that program are numerous and add another chapter to a history of the beginings of our first steps into living in space. I mourned at the loss of Columbia and Challenger, and pray that those who sacrificed can still teach us lessons on our journey off this world.
We should be grateful to the pioneers who brought mankind to this new height.
The shuttle, fully 25 years old, is in dire need of replacement. Now is the time for the next generation of vehicles. A new type of returnable spacecraft that can not only take itself into space, but return again with little risk to the occupants. The time to begin this new development is long overdue, and should have started a dozen years ago or more. This nation, has an obligation to our children and the world to continue that pathway to the stars, for if we stop here and now, we will languish in the what-might-have-been, versus the what-should-be.
It may mean a world partnership of the nations capable of such a project, and willing to help us reach that goal of moving from this solar system to the next and the next.
Do not discard the space program for the money involved or the lives lost. All technical innovations have risks. And the sacrifices of those in the past only serve as a reminder to do more than we did before to ensure the safety of the lives we hold as precious as our own.
Actually the enviro-nazis make them re-use them. It's been that way for a lot of years. It costs way more in money and materials to do it, but they recover them, clean them up, and re-use them. More "environmentally friendly" nonsense that hurts the environment more than it helps it (not to mention that it kills people).
Amounts to essentially the same. The O-rings failed to contain the gases. This is not a good thing in machinery. We master nature with our machines, which is fine so long as the machines don't get out of control. But the machines get out of control a lot. Guess we aren't all that good at mastering nature even if we do well from time to time.
Scaled may not be the next to launch, but don't underestimate the dark horse.
Farah is an idiot. I don't read his trash.
After I exited the other end I learned that they had evacuated nonessential personnel and that everyone was outside the front gate smoking cigs and bs'ing. I asked my lead what would have happened had I ignited the segment and was told I'd have been incinerated in about 7/10th's of a second and the fire would have completely melted the four story metal building I was in.
Good times....
I still say that two losses out of 112 for a vehicle as complicated as the Space Shuttle is damned good. If it was easy, everyone else would be doing it to right? ;-)
Nevermind. I am way wrong. The external fuel tank is the only thing that is NOT re-used.
And I noticed this, your reply to yourself.
So I can better understand. You are sitting atop millions of pounds of dynamite in what can best be described as a controlled explosions and everything has to be absolutely perfect to still risk getting incinerated.
I don't know much about NASA and I am the furthest thing from a rocket scientist. However, saying that, I cannot fathom how more accidents haven't happened over the course of NASA's history.
From what I have read, is it possible that most of todays problems are the result of the Clinton administrations environmental policies which resulted in different materials being used on the shuttle fleet? If this is the case, it would appear that a dangerous situation to begin with got more dangerous. So grounding of the shuttle fleet would make sense.
If it were easy, Kennedy would have chosen something else to demonstrate technological superiority than going to the moon. An acquaintance had about two responses to suggestions. Monday, Wednesday and Friday it was 'nothing is easy.' Tuesday and Thursday it was 'anything is possible.' He didn't take suggestions on the weekend.
Who owns the patent on Freon? And who owns the patent on the dominant replacement for Freon?
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.