Skip to comments.
COLUMBIA COVERUP?
New York Post ^
| February 7, 2003
| STEVEN MILLOY
Posted on 02/07/2003 5:27:05 AM PST by Tom D.
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:11:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last
To: Tom D.
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?
21
posted on
02/07/2003 7:42:24 AM PST
by
Contra
To: Tom D.
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.
22
posted on
02/07/2003 7:53:35 AM PST
by
Ole Okie
To: Tom D.
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
23
posted on
02/07/2003 8:40:55 AM PST
by
lepton
To: exit82; DCPatriot
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.
24
posted on
02/07/2003 8:47:26 AM PST
by
Revolting cat!
(Someone left the cake out in the rain I dont think that I can take it coz it took so long to bake it)
To: Tom D.
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
To: All
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.
To: Tom D.
Never A Straight Answer.
To: Tom D.
Great! Feed the paranoids!
28
posted on
02/07/2003 11:23:51 AM PST
by
Redleg Duke
(Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
To: Tom D.
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.
29
posted on
02/07/2003 11:53:26 AM PST
by
CyberAnt
( Yo! Syracuse)
To: DoughtyOne
Ping.
30
posted on
02/07/2003 1:39:13 PM PST
by
MrConfettiMan
(One Year+ Low Grade Brain Tumor Survivor - http://www.mcmprod.com/jj)
To: mewzilla
You have a great point there.
31
posted on
02/07/2003 2:30:30 PM PST
by
Jael
To: Tom D.
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!
32
posted on
02/07/2003 8:31:23 PM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(Freeper Caribbean Cruise May 31-June 6, Staterooms As Low As $610 Per Person For Entire Week!)
To: MrConfettiMan
Thank you.
33
posted on
02/07/2003 8:31:52 PM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(Freeper Caribbean Cruise May 31-June 6, Staterooms As Low As $610 Per Person For Entire Week!)
To: snopercod
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.)
To: mewzilla
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.
35
posted on
02/07/2003 9:08:15 PM PST
by
Brett66
bttt
36
posted on
02/07/2003 10:44:26 PM PST
by
Jael
To: nutmeg
bttt
37
posted on
02/07/2003 10:46:17 PM PST
by
nutmeg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson