Space shuttle test reveals 'smoking gun' in disaster

Washington Post via Austin American Statesman ^ | 7-8-03 | Kathy Sawyer

[thepainster]

Space shuttle test reveals 'smoking gun' in disaster Simulation of Columbia launch mishap puts hole in wing section

By Kathy Sawyer

THE WASHINGTON POST

Tuesday, July 8, 2003

SAN ANTONIO -- With a resounding "thwack," a piece of foam traveling at 500 mph blew a ragged hole the size of a stop sign in a section of a space shuttle wing Monday, effectively shattering any remaining doubts about what destroyed Columbia and its crew Feb. 1.

"We have found the smoking gun," said Scott Hubbard, a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board who supervised the test.

Austin American Statesman Link

[thepainster]

Come and take a ride on the Space Shuttle, you have a 1 in 20 chance of not coming back. It's time to scrap this dinosaur program which has no real purpose except a jobs program for NASA. Its time to go to Mars. If we would have not wasted time and money on this and the international space station we could have already been there. Flame away!

[Support Free Republic]

Is Someone Else Carrying Your Water?
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[camle]

why should the government be the one to go to mars? why can't private industry do it cheaper, faster and better?

[night reader]

Come and take a ride on the Space Shuttle, you have a 1 in 20 chance of not coming back.
================================
I'd do it in a second if given the chance!

[1Old Pro]

They need better sensors to detect damage and they should inspect the vehicle prior to re-entry. If damage is found, they can fly to the space station and wait for a ride.

[from occupied ga]

I'd do it in a second if given the chance!

Well it's your lucky day. You do have the chance. Just go to the Russians and pay them $20,000,000. Or, do you mean that you'd go in a second as long as you didn't have to pay for it and you were flying on stolen tax loot?

[kylaka]

why can't private industry do it cheaper, faster and better?

Because they would have to make a profit, and we can't let that happen. Think about how many more people could be employed if nobody makes a profit. Scuse me while I go wash my mouth out now for saying a dirty word.

[thepainster]

"why should the government be the one to go to mars? why can't private industry do it cheaper, faster and better?"

I agree that government should not be in the business of space travel except for national defense. However, NASA is not going away any time soon. I hate to see my taxes wasted on experiments in the space station that would barely qualify for a high school science project.

Therefore, if we are going to spend the money, lets do something worthy of the cost and the only thing I see that could capture the imagination of the current generation is a mission to Mars.

Private industry could do it better, but what is the financial incentive for doing so?

[poindexter]

What flame? I'm with you all the way. In fact, I'll go further. We should never have gone to the moon in the 1960's. We should have spent that time an money to build spacefaring _infrastructure_. Inexpensive, reliable lift to LEO. A space station whose purpose is to assemble and launch space-only craft. A moon landing whose purpose is to found a moon base. Lunar energy, metals, and oxygen extraction from native materials. A moon-based super telescope. Etc. Instead we played tag with the moon...we built just enough single-purpose hardware to touch the moon and run back home. Now we need to start all over again...40 years later! Ugh!

[squidly]

A NASA buddy told me about this the day after the disaster. Apparently, he didn't need this test to know it. Now y'all are going to love this....

What he said was that the foam on the fuel tank used to be treated with this aerosol stuff. There were no problems then. Environmental groups objected though, said the stuff they were treating the foam with was damaging the ozone layer. So they quit using it and used a more "earth friendly" substitute. Problems began. The foam started "popcorning" and pieces of it would break off from time to time. NASA engineers had been fretting over it for some time, but apparently nothing could or would be done. And this is the end result.

[SpookBrat]

ping

[dark_lord]

Yes. This issue was surfaced on this forum the day of or the day after the disaster. Yet NONE of the major news media has carried this story. You would think some enterprising editor would be shouting "stop the presses!" to get this story into print. (Oh nevermind they have retired anyone who still remembers when newspapers were printed with "presses".) Anyway, it is not politically correct to point out a direct correlation between trying to be "environmentally friendly" and the cause of the disaster.

[thepainster]

That sounds like a worthy plan to me. However, it is hard for me to forget the emotion I felt when Armstrong walked on the moon. I was 12 years old at the time and living in England. I stayed up all night watching it on TV.

It was a different time back then and we were still in the middle of the cold war. Landing on the Moon and coming back was a great technological achievement for the USA and NASA. It captured the imagination of the nation and the world. Going to Mars would have the same effect today.

[squidly]

The disturbing thing to me is that in this article no one seeks to address the root problem; instead they talk about how they can fix such damage in orbit. Bizarre.
I should have known that info made its way onto FR, but I wasn't active here back then.

[kjam22]

You know... I don't really see the purpose in going to Mars. I don't see the benefit. That's why business isn't able to do it. There is no marketable benefit or profit. It satisfies the imagination of some, and that is the extent of the benefit.

[af_vet_rr]

why can't private industry do it cheaper, faster and better?

They are working on it, however it is going slower than most of us like, partly because the government and one or two large aerospace companies don't like competition, and so came up with a lot of regulations/restrictions. Hopefully that will change, or else, they'll be launching out of other countries.

[camle]

are you telling mem that there is no profit in space?

[camle]

there are a lot of resources on Mars and other places off world. Plus let us not forget the prospects of colonization, should the chance occur.

[kjam22]

There is no profit in going to the moon or mars.

[thepainster]

It did not take Freepers long to link the space shuttle disaster to the use of environmentally friendly foam.

The radical environmentalist movement is really just a front for socialism.