COLUMBIA COVERUP?

New York Post ^ | February 7, 2003 | STEVEN MILLOY

[Tom D.]

February 7, 2003 -- WE may never know precisely what happened to Columbia, but one thing is clear: NASA shouldn't be in charge of investigating itself. NASA now doubts that foam debris caused the disaster. That's a major shift from days ago, when foam was the "leading candidate" - an explanation that quickly became embarrassing.

[Contra]

Well Democrats say that Republicans murder old people and children, so turn about is fair play. Democrats and wacko environmentalists, lead by none other than Bill Clinton/Al Gore and their radical, left wing administration, murdered seven Shuttle Columbia astronauts. Have the authorities taken Big Bill into custody yet?

[Ole Okie]

Here we have some of our best and brightest killed because politicians and bureaucrats are afraid to stand up to the zero tolerance crowd and say CFC's are necessary.

Enviroweenies got Columbia, in all probability.

The EPA exempted the ET foam from CFC restrictions. Yet NASA didn't take the obvious step of going back to Freon use to correct an identified problem.

Political correctness uber alles.

[lepton]

1994-05-04 Advances in Science

"The Air Force is reacting to the EPA ban on CFC's by replacing
them in the cooling systems of the intercontinental (ballistic)
missiles with 2 to 10 nuclear warheads on board. If they are ever
fired, it will be an environmentally friendly nuclear holocaust,
not threatening the Ozone layer."
-- Access to Energy, July 1993

[Revolting cat!]

From Alan Shephard to the moon---a little more than 8 years.

Yeah, right! From Alan Shephard to the Hollywood sound stage to simulate picturesque moon landing. They should have stuck to the Hollywood scenarios, I've always said - much safer.

[Lancey Howard]

Yet NASA didn't return to the safer Freon-based foam. Instead, it continued to risk tile damage and disaster with PC-foam..... Now, in what smacks of cover-up, NASA claims the Columbia disaster has become a scientific mystery. It says computer modeling fails to show foam striking the thermal tiles could cause catastrophic damage - apparently ignoring that flaking foam substantially penetrated thermal tiles on an earlier flight.

Wow. BUMP

[aristeides]

Would the EPA have granted the exemption to NASA in 2001 if someone in NASA had not asked for it (plus, provided justification that EPA found satisfactory)? I wonder who that was, and why he couldn't then get NASA to change the foam used.

[537 Votes]

Never A Straight Answer.

[Redleg Duke]

Great! Feed the paranoids!

[CyberAnt]

Well ... the new independent panel to investigate this mess has now taken over - and I read a comment which stated that all events at lift-off have been placed back on the table, including the suspect foam.

[MrConfettiMan]

Ping.

[Jael]

You have a great point there.

[DoughtyOne]

Up to fifteen inches long, up to 1.5 inches deep.

Nah, this 20" x 16" x 6" piece of insullation obviously had nothing to do with damage to the wing. LMAO

The call for a independent commission is right on target!

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you.

[KC_for_Freedom]

If you will continue to read in that thread, there is evidence that Marshall Space Flight Center wrote the specifications for these new cleaners so that only one company could qualify.

It would be interesting to know to whom these companies made political contributions, if any.

There are companies who made out well in the conversion to so called environment friendly solvents, etc. I believe the patent restrictions on Freon were about to expire when the Dupont company developed a safer new refrigerant and got a new patent. But that is of no consequence where the shuttle is concerned. The space program did not contribute a significant percentage of any of these chemicals, even when they were used in ground cleaning of circuit boards, etc. The problem was that the defense contractors never looked environmentally friendly because of massive ground polution at manufacturing sites. To slide in these clean up areas, the industry had to be squeeky clean in the use of specified chemicals. NASA simply did not want to call attention to a need for a banned product. (In this respect they were cowards and clearly increased the level of hazard.)

[Brett66]

So why didn't NASA put it's collective foot down?

NASA has been Clintonized, this sounds like a mandate under former administrator Goldin. He was apointed by Bush Sr. but he was truly a klinton toady.

[Jael]

bttt

[nutmeg]

bttt