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]

Nasa chiefs 'repeatedly ignored' safety warnings

Peter Beaumont
Sunday February 2, 2003
The Observer

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'.

During his last 11 years at Nasa, Nelson served as a mission operations evaluator for proposed advanced space transportation projects. He was on the initial design team for the space shuttle. He participated in every shuttle upgrade until his retirement.

Listing a series of mishaps with shuttle missions since 1999, Nelson warned in his letter that Nasa management and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel have failed to respond to the growing warning signs of another shuttle accident. Since 1999 the vehicle had experienced a number of potentially disastrous problems:

· 1999 - Columbia's launch was delayed by a hydrogen leak and Discovery was grounded with damaged wiring, contaminated engine and dented fuel line;

· January 2000 - Endeavor was delayed because of wiring and computer failures;

· August 2000 - inspection of Columbia revealed 3,500 defects in wiring;

· October 2000 - the 100th flight of the shuttle was delayed because of a misplaced safety pin and concerns with the external tank;

· April 2002 - a hydrogen leak forced the cancellation of the Atlantis flight;

· July 2002 - the inspector general reported that the shuttle safety programme was not properly managed;

· August 2002 - the shuttle launch system was grounded after fuel line cracks were discovered.

Nelson's claims - which The Observer could not independently verify yesterday - emerged against a background of growing concern over the management of safety issues by Nasa.

They followed similar warnings in April last year by the former chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory panel, Richard Bloomberg, who said: 'In all of the years of my involvement, I have never been as concerned for space shuttle safety as I am right now.'

Bloomberg blamed the deferral or elimination of planned safety upgrades, a diminished workforce as a result of hiring freezes, and an ageing infrastructure for the advisory panel's findings.

His warning echoed earlier concern about key shuttle safety issues. In September 2001 at a Senate hearing into shuttle safety, senators and independent experts warned that budget and management problems were putting astronauts lives at risk. At the centre of concern were claims that a budget overspend of almost $5 billion (£3bn) had led to a culture in Nasa whereby senior managers treated shuttle safety upgrades as optional.

Among those who spoke out were Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who warned: 'I fear that if we don't provide the space shuttle programme with the resources it needs for safety upgrades, our country is going to pay a price we can't bear.

'We're starving Nasa's shuttle budget and thus greatly increasing the chance of a catastrophic loss.'

Although Nasa officials said that improvements were being made they admitted that more needed to be done.

A year earlier, a General Accounting Office report had warned that the loss of experienced engineers and technicians in the space shuttle programme was threatening the safety of future missions just as Nasa was preparing to increase its annual number of launches to build the International Space Station.

The GAO cited internal Nasa documents showing 'workforce reductions are jeopardising Nasa's ability to safely support the shuttle's planned flight rate'.

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.

The GAO assembled a composite portrait of the shuttle programme's workforce that showed twice as many workers over 60 years of age than under 30. It assessed that the number of workers then nearing retirement could jeopardise the programme's ability to transfer leadership roles to the next generation to support the higher flight rate necessary to build the space station.

[Jim Noble]

>>Two missions out of what? 113? That's a 2% failure rate<<

The STS design probably does carry a failure rate in the 2% range.

The program as designed requires hardware with a 0.00001% failure rate.

The hardware and the program design are incompatible. This disconnect between reality and fantasy, maintained for almost thirty years now, has led to increasingly politicized leadership at NASA, and, I suspect, a go along to get along culture (because those are the only sort of people who will follow leaders like that).

I weep for the brave astronauts, but I also weep for my country which here, as in so many other areas, is dying of inadequate development-intellectual, moral, physical-and is using fantasy to cover it up.

[Jim Noble]

>>NASA does things that make no sense, and it does them in a _way_ that makes no sense. If anyone cared enough, NASA coud have been cleaned up or even replaced. but nobody cared very much. Hardly anybody in the White House, or Congress cares, and only a tiny fraction of the American people. NASA is what we have _instead_ of a real space exploration and development program<<

In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man should goddam well be king BUMP.

[Jim Noble]

>>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<<

Don't confuse the absolute necessity of "high flight" with justification of the design and management of STS.

I agree that 1/75 is a probable failure rate.

The problem is that the managers have been ordered to design and operate a program that assumes a 1/100000 failure rate.

Using your number, after 300 flights we would have no more orbiters.

Where is the assembly line? What design work is going on for the replacement vehicles? What are the budget assumptions to support a program with a 1/75 failure rate? How are the flight test personnel being selected? Is the use of civilian mission specialists consistent with a failure rate of 1/75?

Nothing-absolutely nothing-about the shuttle program is consistent with a 1/75 failure rate. Except reality.

[RJayneJ]

Thanks for the nomination!

[TLBSHOW]

I see this is drudges front page story, its front page at the lefts drudge rip off site too!

[TLBSHOW]

Wait till you see who they will be bringing out. Yep all liberals. I want answers on if this guy sent a letter to Clinton in the 90's. To warn him of the problems.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

All i can say is when the liberals start crawling out of their holes and pointing fingers its time to dig the holes deeper and shove them back start smacking them with shovels full of truth till they gag and cant stand to stick their heads out.

Remind them and slam them with the facts that the x42 administration budget cuts toward the space program were just the begining of a long failed presidency and unlike the trickle down prosperous economy left to us by Ron Reagan x42's trickle down is one of a broken economy filled with lies and failure due to the greed of a theiving liberal president who only had his legacy in mind for selfish communist reasons.

[TLBSHOW]

Clinton is the reason and the democrats are the problem. I fought last night over this as it this story was reported at Fox under a nation wants answers! I say be ready because this story isn't going away. Its now front page at the left and the right.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Exactly right

[TLBSHOW]

you have mail comimg

[ladyinred]

Although the shuttle was older, it had been revamped so many times that it was in essence new. NASA would not send a shuttle up if they didn't think it was in tip top shape. Accidents happen! Old or new would not matter in this case.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

I saw it second hand through two aerospace types. Their resumes were quite impressive and they were let go after many years on the various space projects in the Houston area. I gained the impression that there was a great "house cleaning" in the early to mid 90's. Do you know anything about that?

[alrea]

If it's CNN, a European journalist or a Democrat the first question is phrased something like "did budget limitations cause this..."

Congress will beat the snot of this dead horse for months.

A project that was suppossed to cost 5 million per launch that now exceeds 500 million per launch is unsustainable except by one force on earth: the US Government.

When are those that want more government going to realize?

Life is unsustainable with budgets like this. The question must be why did costs get so high and where are the inefficiencies? Why did the Government fail these brave people?

[300winmag]

Ask Daniel Golden why he diverted American dollars to the Internation Space Station that was supposed to be funded by Russia. My guess is that the amount diverted to the Russian portion was probably in the hundreds of thousands. This was done at slick willie's bidding.

Algore got $2 BILLION of NASA funds funnelled by Golden to the the chief civilian and general in charge of the Russian space station parts. The bribes were paid so that at least something would be built, even if it was substandard. The Russian parts of the ISS were built maninly to keep the scientists and engineers from going to work for some other enemy country.

Space, like everything else, was viewed as just another source of pork and pandering by the klintons.

[sunshine state]

I caught part of an interview yesterday afternoon on Fox news with Shep Smith. Don't remember the other man's name, but someone very knowledgable of NASA, but he said something about the 'budge cuts that began about a decade ago with the end of the Cold War. That kind of spending was no longer needed'. I'm sorry, bu the first thing that popped into my head was 'Another thing we can blame on Bill Clinton'.

[oldvike]

I don't think you can pin this on Bush. First, we don't know what exactly caused this accident. It could have just been a freak occurance. Sencondly, I would imagine that Bush relies heavily (moreso than he would on a foreign policy issue or economic issue) on the advice of NASA brass when addressing such letters as the one sent by the retired NASA member.

[OldFriend]

Just heard Kay Bailey Hutchison say that the NASA budget was cut 40% in the past decade. Whether or not that is the cause of the shuttle failure is another story.

The waste in the program was monumental, as with every other bureacracy. So let's not focus on the finances but focus on the engineering and see if we can't minimize future risk.

[TLBSHOW]

ping

I see Bill Clinton cut spending for NASA for 7 years stright

While President Bush has.....

Mar. 02, 2001 PT

"The new administration has been very supportive of space science," Weiller said.

Bush's plan, "A Blueprint For New Beginnings," provides $14.5 billion in funding for NASA for 2002, a 2 percent increase over 2001 and a 7 percent increase over 2000.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,42115,00.html




This is front page at drudge and the lefts drudge same story we have to deal with it.


the right http://www.drudgereport.com/
the left http://199.96.2.183/