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."

[beauzo]

The fact that Bush assigned Michael Griffin, a relatively young scientist-like, as administrator is a very good sign of the changes going on in NASA. And perhaps more importantly, a sign that the President is really supporting the future of space exploration and space business.

The young guys in NASA, like Griffin, I'm sure, are very aware that the Shuttle needs to be replaced. But, in order to do that, some of the older guys with seniority and a clinging to the old ways need to be replaced first.

Michael Griffin and his Special Assistant, Christopher Shank, are also aware that future missions will be too expensive for NASA alone and that closer partnerships with the private sector are necessary. The Centennial Challenges program is just the beginning, I hope...

[RightWhale]

That was all some wierd hoax, wasn't it?

At best they are misleading rather than illegal. They can sell quit-claim rights, which are any rights they may happen to own. They own no property rights, so the buyers get that--nothing but paper.

The rules for claiming land are these:

A person must set foot on the land.
A person must stay on the land and make improvements to the land.
If a person leaves the land for an extended period [7 years] of time he has abandoned the claim.
Proving up or patenting title are done by application to the country of ultimate authority. Then the land becomes property to whatever degree the country allows.

---

It won't be much different in outer space, although some allowance may be made for robotic equipment in place of a person.

[wyattearp]

I don't think that it is a stupid question. It is one that I have been asking ever since I saw that they sprayed the insulation on. Weight would be one issue. The only other one that I can think of would be loss of internal volume. I don't see where that would be an issue though. The biggie would be the weight.

I don't see why they can't just build the tank a little bit bigger to have more fuel for the additional weight, and burn the engines a little bit longer. I'm not a rocket scientist (I've always wanted to say that where it was actually a relevant statement) but I don't see the problem here.

I know that the added weight and fuel adds up to a lot of money to boost it to orbit (at $10,000/lb last I heard), but it seems like it would be a heck of a lot cheaper than losing the occasional shuttle and all lives on board.

[Flightdeck]

"If you think I paint a bleak picture, you have never been in an incompetent government organization."

Your picture sounds fine for an incompetent organization. The only problem is that NASA is probably the most competent government agency we have. They're not perfect, but they accomplish a helluva lot with their money, more than can be said for many of the other agencies who get funded tenfold of NASA.

There aren't pockets of competency, there may be small pockets of incompetency, and you're right; one used to be at the top, but not any more. Griffin used to be chief engineer at NASA.

And finally, I think these threads should be locked to scientists and engineers. Everybody else's opinion is near-meaningless.

[KC_for_Freedom]

No, I think Mr. K knows more about this than you do. BTW, have you ever noticed that every garage in Mexico will sell you the olk kind of freon if you need a recharge to your radiator? Do you think Mexico participates in freon recycling? Do you suppose we still (world wide now) release a lot of freon? You bet. And the ozone hole is closing anyway.

When you say real solid ground you probably mean some scientists published a real solid paper on the subject. Have they got a good answer for how all the ozone released in the northern hemisphere ends up ruining the uv barrier over Antarctica? And if they bring in solar wind effects, is it just as likely that the sun is depleting ozone?

[enviros_kill]

Earth Worshippers Cause Death in Space: Environmental Dogma Has Led to the Sacrifice of Fourteen Astronauts on the Space Shuttle

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2942

by Hannes Hacker, an aerospace engineer and former flight controller at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston.

[the anti-liberal]

The rules for claiming land are these: A person must set foot on the land.
~I can see that private enterprise could conceivably do this.

A person must stay on the land and make improvements to the land.
~More than just making a trip (to the moon), this would require a vehicle capable of not only landing, but of serving as a 'home' of sorts through this period.
~Again, I can see that private enterprise could conceivably do this.

If a person leaves the land for an extended period [7 years] of time he has abandoned the claim.
~Once the forgoing has been established, this should be relatively easy to meet.

Proving up or patenting title are done by application to the country of ultimate authority. Then the land becomes property to whatever degree the country allows.
~So the question here is, to whom does 'ultimate authority' belong?
~I venture to suggest ultimate authority belong to whomever meets all of the foregoing conditions first, unless some other condition for claiming ultimate authority upon any celestial body already exist (does it?).

~In this case, the 'cost' of the land is limited to the cost of placing ones self upon the land in question, as the land itself is owned by no one, and in fact, the first to acquire land through the meeting of the foregoing conditions may claim ultimate authority and thus acquire rights to sell any and all land on said celestial body.

Is this reasoning sound?

Also, is it fair that robotic equipment be allowed to (legally) meet the above conditions and thus allow ultimate authority to be claimed by the operator of said robotic equipment, notwithstanding the lack of physical presence by the operator him/her self upon said celestial body?

[k2blader]

What are the benefits of not dumping NASA?

[k2blader]

And finally, I think these threads should be locked to scientists and engineers.

Yeah. And I think the immigration threads should be locked to border patrol agents. < /sarc >

[enviros_kill]

Some more background on the knee-jerk eco-cowards that replaced perfectly fine freon with replacement crap that weakened the adhesive holding the foam to the fuel tank.

Eco-foam caused shuttle disaster
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,77832,00.html

CAIB Public Hearing on fuel tank insulation-April 2003
http://caib.nasa.gov/events/public_hearings/20030407/present_et.html
They appear to downplay the eco-foam as being a cause but the sketchy Power Point charts with no audio makes it difficult to determine if it is a CYA maneuver. What do others think?

[RightWhale]

Property has always been a moment of the state. Family and property are the first two moments. There must be a state. If one is going into Daniel Boone mode, recall that he obtained title to Kentucke by his own negotiations with the Indians. He then proceeded to bring in settlers who in turn drove him out by over population. But, Boone operated under the state.

If one is going into mountain man trapper mode, recall that furs or the outer space equivalent must be brought to market and traded either directly or through the medium of money for various provisions. That is where the state once more presents itself, for if the trapper does not have a right according to the state to be out there, he will be arrested and his furs and rifle confiscated. Trade on the black market? Even Han Solo was caught eventually.

There will be no recognized private claims and no state protection of any asserted private rights according to the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty. If there were a thriving and independent population in outer space it would be different since they could form their own state. But as it stands now the first one out there would be a renegade and would not survive any contact with the state. The Navy might even go out there to arrest him, stranger things have been done by the state.

[Flightdeck]

That was hyperbole on my part. Obviously everyone should be allowed to spout their opinion. I'm just fed up with the ignorant ones.

[ItsForTheChildren]

Surely there are some lightweight materials that could be used to shroud the tank or the orbiter. But I believe the best thing to do would to build a vehicle/launch system that just wasn't so damn fragile and exposed to failure. This design just flat-out sucks. I'm surprised there wasn't an incident of the tiles being damaged to that extent before Columbia. That might have been the best we could come up with 25 years ago but it's certainly not the best we can produce today.

[GladesGuru]

Might I suggest doing your homework before calling someone dumb? The hard data about the Freon blown foam v. politically correct foam is clear and unambiguous.

As for Farah's accuracy index - it is actually quite high.

Might you be a closet enviro distressd about the "outing" of the Freon issue by Farah?

[GladesGuru]

Credentials aren't the issue. Farah published a report made by a NASA employee. That's what reporters do - they report.

Well, at WorldNetDaily.com they still do.

[Calpernia]

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

I was on the web cam live this evening. It was docked at the space station.

[GladesGuru]

I do think that NASA has become a bureaucracy. The days when it was a bunch of engineers is long gone.

Fairly soon I will post an article about a talk I had with a retired NASA employee while fishing on a dock across from the main launch pads.

He supervised a team of 11 engineers. Why was he the supervisor? Because he got results. But, as he said "NASA is very different now." Rank and bureaucracy protocols were more important, said he.

Sounds pretty rank to me.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"That's what reporters do - they report."

LOL! Maybe you are a closet journalist...

I found the articles link in an earlier post very interesting. It sounds like the new foam has been a big problem, but NASA is hidding it.

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[GladesGuru]

"If you think I paint a bleak picture, you have never been in an incompetent government organization."

Other than DARPA, what government organization is competent? Just wondering.

[BUSHdude2000]

Good title, Pull the Plug on NASA. Cut their budget for at least the next two years and devote some of that money to the military. I have a brother who was in Afghanistan and he showed a video where our Men were driving through a battlefield and the Hummer they were in kept stalling, leaving them a still target. Who gives a rats ass about Mars or any of this crap, supply our Men overseas first.