Nasa chiefs 'repeatedly ignored' safety warnings [BLAMING BUSH AGAIN? DOUBLE B.A.]

http://www.observer.co.uk/ ^ | Sunday February 2, 2003 | Peter Beaumont

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Fears of a catastrophic shuttle accident were raised last summer with the White House by a former Nasa engineer who pleaded for a presidential order to halt all further shuttle flights until safety issues had been addressed.

In a letter to the White House, Don Nelson, who served with Nasa for 36 years until he retired in 1999, wrote to President George W. Bush warning that his 'intervention' was necessary to 'prevent another catastrophic space shuttle accident'.

You know your right it just says fears raised last summer not written and its very vague on when a letter was received by the white house

And this guy retired in 1999 how fresh could he be on safety regs if they change daily like news reports say which still puts it back in nasa's lap.

[jlogajan]

The fingerpointing begins.

[Howlin]

I'm with you. I don't believe there is ANYTHING that they won't try to pin on Bush.

[TankerKC]

How many of us drive twenty four year old cars.

How many of us maintain our cars the was a shuttle is? C'mon, the military is flying aircraft built in the early sixties. Why? Great maintenacne and safety standards. The age of the vehicle (by itself) is a non-issue.

[DaBroasta]

The age of the vehicle (by itself) is a non-issue.

Roger that. As in B-52.

[Steven W.]

I don't see any mention that last year Bush & Congress even approved over $200 million in additional funding for NASA to address all known safety issues left from the Clinton administration.

[mrfixit514]

This whistleblower is no Nostradamus. It is a pretty safe bet that eventually there will be an accident.

[liberallarry]

THIS IS ROCKET SCIENCE

Why didn't I think of that?

[Optimist]

IS IT MONDAY MORNING ALREADY?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

And I am a rocket scientist.

Writting letters to the president is just silly. Does anyone really think that the Whitehouse can fully investigate all letters of doom and gloom that come in each day? This is what managers at NASA are for. If they ignored warnings it's their fault, not Bush's. And, from what I've seen, NASA is goign all out, political correctness, hire nbased on race, not ability, etc. With race based hiring, rather than qualification based hiring, expect more of this in the future.

[Liberatio]

Sounds like a Clinton Administration problem. Fox News showed the budget for NASA (most likely reduction in proper procedure followed) and then rise in the last two years. Makes me wonder.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Stated: "Space agency officials discovered in late 1999 that many employees didn't have the necessary skills to properly manage avionics, mechanical engineering and computer systems, according to the GAO report."

Welcome to government/NASA hiring based on race (no white guys allowed...). I've seen it first hand.

[wretchard]

How is old is too old? The decision to build the shuttle was being taken during the Nixon administration. How costly? It takes $10,000 to take a pound to orbit on the shuttle. How dangerous? It has been estimated that the chances of a fatal accident were between 1 in 438 to 1 in 1,000.

It has long been known that the technology exists to bring the costs down by a factor of 10 and increase safety by perhaps a factor of 100. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010412-sts1.htm But for various reasons, including politics, a replacement was never built.

Now the question is whether the current level of cost and safety is acceptable in an era when we can do much better. We shut down the shuttle production line a long time ago, and there would be no point in tooling it up again to build a Nixon-era craft. There is no element of "face" in retiring the shuttle any more than there was in replacing B-707s with 747s.

An accident of this kind, given statistical probabilities, was going to happen one day. Today's the day. And not only were the lives of astronauts lost, but our access to space, which is one of the cornerstones of our national strength, has been somewhat limited. It's too old and too expensive.

[Liberatio]

The effects of the budget cuts would not be felt for a while after they happen. It is rarely immediate, kinda like the economy. I cringed when I heard of a politician saying they are dedicated to finding out what happend and they will make sure it doesn't happen again. I knew it would happen. I think it was Bailey Hutchinson(sp?) of Texas. The space program is the best thing for America because it gives so much back.

[Alberta's Child]

I think the bigger issue in the aftermath of this disaster is whether the shuttle program is worthwhile at all. I'm convinced that 95% of the shuttle's functions can be performed by unmanned spacecraft, and the cost of launching such spacecraft would be much lower because they wouldn't have to be terribly concerned about the human element.

Heck, they could even try to launch the things in a hurricane if they wanted to, and if it crashed then the only concern would be how much money they've lost.

[ez]

America will rise above this tragic accident and learn from it.

Great post...this IS Rocket Science.

[Mr. Silverback]

Though I'm sure the libs will happily try to blame this on Dubya, I think it likely that "repeated warnings" have been going on for quite some time and are inconsequential even in light of today's catastrophe. The fleet is aging, and no matter how careful NASA is there are going to be people who want the program shut down. Post-Challenger it was estimated that we'd lose a crew about every 75 flights, and there were people who heard that and went ape. They couldn't imagine taking that much risk, but if it were about absolute safety, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and , yes, the Shuttle, would never have been launched.

The new frontier will cost us lives. That is the nature of frontiers. But the only ship that is safe is the one that stays in harbor, and that ship accomplishes nothing.

BTW, I wonder how many of the folks who will scream their regrets at the age of the shuttles are the same people who can't see a reason that we need another $40 billion to fight a world war, or understand why we need to replace a KC-135 fleet that is about to hit 50 years of operation.

[ffusco]

Flawed argument. Airframes have a much longer service life than a car. Everything from seats,avionics, engines, and landing gear can be upgraded until the platform shows signs of metal fatigue. With scheduled refits, the B-52s are expected to serve until 2025.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

A B-52 does not re-enter the atmosphere at 12,500 miles per hour.

There IS a problem and the people of this country, who pay enormous sums to fund NASA do have a right to know the nature of the problem. It is not reasonable to simply dismiss the Columbia explosion with "accidents happen" and keep pouring vast sums into a program that is doing something wrong. We shouldn't put fine people at risk nor should we allow a huge fleet of new craft to replace the ones blown up without questioning the entire NASA safety program.

All these investigation panels picked to find out the root causes of such accidents should not end in a report that places no blame. If nobody is to blame, then we are dealing with a crap game - a roulette wheel where things will just blow up periodically without warning or explanation on some random timetable.