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."
Wow, I'm doing really good today. I think I'd just better have a beer or something... %-)
Loss of thermal tiles has always been a problem, they used to find several in the flame trough on the pad after launch. Several times tools were left onboard to free float after achieving orbit. A torque wrench was found in the upper section of an SRB only to be discovered during disassembly. I forget what launch it was (an early one) and empty coke cans and empty ciggarette packs floated out from underneath the seats on the orbiter.
Like I said, everyone is an expert on what Nasa is doing wrong now...
Is the replacement for freon in NASA use the same as in home use? If so that could be Puron... It is frightfully expensive by comparison and home a/c units will have to use it in the next few years.
When we replaced our ac 5 years ago we went to puron. It has been troublesome and very expensive (just because of use of puron) whereas the older unit used for another segment of the house is still freon and has never needed any attention in over 20 years.
Dupont owns the patent for freon AND the replacement for freon
They won't even consider adding fibers to the foam due to the added weight. It's all about the weight.
Listen, I'm not saying Burt is the answer to all of spaceflight. But if NASA keeps tweaking 30-year-old ideas in the hope of moving forward, that to me is some damn stultifyin' thinking. If you have big piles of cash and you can choose to innovate smaller and leaner as Rutan has done, the time is now to DO IT.
I never said NASA should be dismantled. I *do* think it needs a shot in the arm with new ideas and out of the box enthusiasm. The guys at NASA are, as an average, getting older and older. They were inspired by the early days of space aviation. Where's the next crop of inspired young scientists going to come from? From watching retreaded shuttle launches that keep aiming for covered ground and don't always succeed at even that?
Just askin'.
The areas where they are losing foam are in the cryogenic repressurization lines which means they are dealing with ambient temperatures on the external side and negative freezing temps only inches away behind the tunnel covers.
I'm not a rocket scientist, I'm a carpenter drinking beer (LOL) but I think I know what I am talking about.
Bravo. Well said.
Don't fool yourself. The freon problem was real and on solid scientific ground.
"What are Joseph Farah's credentials again to critique the work of rocket scientists?"
lol
Probably about the same is yours, but I won't stop you from writing your opinions as long as you don't stop me from calling Mr Farah a dipstick.
I agree with Mr Farah about the shuttle - we should use the best proven technologies and materials for cutting edge science. If NASA doesn't understand that then they shouldn't fly man into space.
It's rocket science, not environmental science.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
NASA --> Never A Staight Answer
> I worked on SS1 and I have a pretty good idea of what Burt's position is and some of the flaws therein
Nice. I'm jealous. Also, I don't think Burt is the be-all end-all, but I do believe he rightly points out how NASA has gotten into a rut.
> At this point in time NASA is still necessary in a few areas, those including access to government facilities (ala use of Edwards AFB restricted airspace), a political interface, and the fact that they still have some very smart people working for them. They are coming around, but it's still too early to determine whether the management is convinced of allowing greater private control. The latest "contest" programs are just a beginning.
Glad to hear things are changing. Like I've said, I don't believe in counting NASA out, only that they desperately need to shake off a plodding "stay the course" kind of thinking.
It doesn't help that govt. control makes idiots feel like they can criticize every mishap on the grounds that every mission needs to be completely safe. Reduce risk, yeah, but do these pinheads know that no science is 100% in the early days? Sheesh.
You confuse pulling the plug on an incompetent old federal bureaucracy with pulling the plug on the space program. They are very different things, and NASA has all the hallmarks of an incompetent organization. However many competent and smart people work there, it has become unwieldy with offices and organizations checking the checkers. There is no accountability for making any decisions, no way that decisison get made in a traceable deliberate fashion, and no way to get anything done. You need to shed about 90% of the people who are there, but if you tried to do it, of course, being and incompetent organization, the people to do the reorganization would be incompetent, and the process would lead to the elimination of any pockets of competency left. The bureaucrats would see this as an improvement. Now they would be able to practice pure unadulterated bureaucracy, untroubled by the burden of any facts or arguments presented by anyone who actually knows what is going on or how to do anything useful.
If you think I paint a bleak picture, you have never been in an incompetent government organization.
You think NASA is run by rocket scientists?? You really are out of touch. It is run by bureaucrats. A real genuine rocket scientist is sometimes asked for his opinion by lower level bureaucrats - and his opinion is only an opinion. I doubt a real rocket scientist has been allowed within 1000 ft of the administrator's office for years - certainly not without a leash and collar (one of those medieval kinds you use for dobermans).
But I am not concerned with that. My own issue is property rights in outer space. It shouldn't be my issue, but I seem to be alone at the moment. It should be a big issue, and eventually it will be. I'm evidently a little ahead of things in my interest. Burt should be hugely interested in space property rights. All the space developers should be, but they are still trying to get off the ground. When they finally do get off the ground, they will smack into the property rights issue and crash.
What is your position (I ask because I'm interested) on Gerard O'Neil type space colonies at L3 or 5, such as a spinning torus (a la Riverworld)? No landy rights to consider, etc..
landy s/b land...
The prohibition on private ownership of space resources would not cover anything launched from earth, that ownership would continue, but it would cover any celestial bodies such as lunar soil and asteroidal material.
Remember those ads for lunar property? Where you could purchase land on the moon? That was all some wierd hoax, wasn't it?
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.