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."
That is just the purpose of the freon from my reading. It improves adhesion of the foam to this type of surface, and within itself.
I also use polyurethane foam; have 2.5 inches of it on my roof, for one thing (minimally expanding). No problem getting it to adhere there. As you suggest, removing it is more of a problem in construction than application. However, I can easily pull it off the edges of the roof after weathering for five years now, but this is the area that wasn't protected by an epoxy overcoat.
That hasn't stopped him from writing columns yet, has it?
Not true period. You do not know about what you talk. Have you worked on the tank? Or on the Shuttle? Or on the Boosters?
"...NASA --> Not Able to Safely Aviate..."
I always thought that NASA stood for:
"Never A Straight Answer..."
You didn't happen to leave any...errrrrr...'droppings' in there on your NEXT trip through one did you???
"Credentials aren't the issue. Farah published a report made by a NASA employee. "
You must be talking about a different article. This tripe is straight out of Farah's mouth, and screams lack of knowledge. Two of the first three paragraphs are flat-out false. Reporting? Not only is it an opinion piece, it is one riddled with inaccuracies.
I really don't think so. Some environmental effects are real, and the effect of freon on the chemistry of the ozone layer is, now, one of the most soundly understood chemical processes there is.
Uhh, I have some bad new for you about DARPA.
I think those DoD offices within shouting range of Rumsfeld is probably competent. It goes downhill rapidly from there.
Excuse me, but 2+years to fix the problem before them that stuff was shedding from the fuel tanks, they declare everything fixed, launch, and guess what, stuff sheds from the fuel tanks. No that is not a competent organization. It is indicative of a bunch of bozos in charge.
How come glades can see the obvious and you can't. This is somehting that everyone with a technical degree who has some experience with the Washington scene understands. It is a laughing stock. If you are part of it, don't defend it. Demand that it be fixed. It is for the nation.
"It is indicative of a bunch of bozos in charge."
Gee, if it's so simple, you'd think everybody would be launching 2,000 ton spacecraft into orbit to man their space stations, controlling their robots on the Martian surface, and successfully intercepting comets traveling at Mach 30 to discover what they're made of.
Just another uneducated opinion. I mean yours, not mine.
Like I said, there are pockets of competency - that do get stuff done. Don't attribute much of that to NASA HQs, however. Like I pointed out - job #1 was fixing the foam problem on the shuttle fuel tanks. THAT didn't get done? How come? If it were a competent organization one thing that would never ever happen again is foam falling off the fuel tanks. An asteroid could hit earth tomorrow undected, but the foam would stay glued on.
Posts in all caps and the anger is palpable...
And he hates NASA more than I hate sandmaggots...
I don't think it was designed to fall off. But the idea is weight savings. So desperately so that they stopped painting th main tank to save weight.
The environmentally "bad" stuff originally used seems to have done the job satisfactorily.
Can we say it one more time? Mindless environmentalism kills.
Surely you jest.
A moonbat statement is a moonbat statement no matter how many times one reads it.
I never believe assertions or opinions on the web.
Nice try though.
At the very least, the main tank is reused.
Lol. No. The only thing that made me nervous is when they grounded me with a cable to the building to eliminate any static. I only did it once because I was transferred over to the ET/SRB mate crew. I did get to crawl inside the oxygen tank but that wasn't half as exciting. ;-)
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.