Posted on 07/30/2005 3:11:28 PM PDT by Red6
NASA has been trying to make the space shuttle safe since its negligence killed seven brave astronauts in 2003.
Unfortunately, they must not have many WorldNetDaily readers at the space agency.
The Discovery is orbiting the Earth right now with tile damage caused by the same problem that obliterated the Columbia upon re-entry.
No one is certain how extensive that damage is and whether it threatens the crew.
But it should never have gotten this far.
It was NASA's environmental concerns that resulted in the tragic deaths of the Columbia crew. And that wasn't the first time a space shuttle crew was lost because of misguided regulations and fads.
In fact, NASA's own investigations strongly suggest something very similar occurred back in 1986 resulting in the destruction of the Challenger and its entire crew.
Long before the space agency officially blamed the Feb. 1 disintegration of the Columbia upon re-entry – on foam insulation breaking free from the external tank and slamming into the leading edge of the left wing – I reported NASA knew of a continuing problem with foam insulation dating back six years earlier. The new foam had been chosen for shuttle missions, I reported – the day after the Columbia tragedy – because it was "environmentally friendly."
More than eight years ago, NASA investigated extensive thermal tile damage on the space shuttle Columbia as a direct result of the shedding of external tank insulation on launch. The problems began when the space agency switched to materials and parts that were considered more "environmentally friendly," according to a NASA report obtained by WorldNetDaily.
In 1997, during the 87th space shuttle mission, similar tile damage was experienced during launch when the external tank foam crashed into some tiles during the stress of takeoff. Fortunately, the damage was not catastrophic. But investigators then noted the damage followed changes in the methods of "foaming" the external tank – changes mandated by concerns about being "environmentally friendly."
Here's what that report said: "During the ... mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of 'foaming' the external tank had been used for this mission and the (previous) mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter."
While the NASA report on that earlier Columbia mission ended on a positive note, suggesting changes would be made in procedures to avoid such problems in the future, obviously the problems were never corrected.
The original report is still there on NASA's website for any other enterprising journalist to go see for himself or herself.
Worse, this was apparently not the first shuttle mission and crew destroyed because of concerns about the environmental friendliness of certain products used by NASA.
Anyone alive in 1986 likely remembers where he or she was when the Challenger exploded shortly after launch. And everyone who followed the story of the investigation of the Challenger disaster knows the official findings – a problem with O-rings.
But what exactly was the problem with the O-rings?
In 1977, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of asbestos in a wide range of paint products. NASA, through the mid-1980s, had used a commercially available, "off-the-shelf" putty manufactured by the Fuller O'Brien Paint Company in San Francisco to help seal the shuttle field joints. But the paint company, fearful of legal action as a result of the asbestos ban, stopped manufacturing the putty. NASA had to look for another solution.
Six months before the Challenger disaster, a July 23, 1985, memo by budget analyst Richard Cook warned about new burn-through problems with O-rings.
"Engineers have not yet determined the cause of the problem," he wrote. "Candidates include the use of a new type of putty (the putty formerly used was removed from the market by NASA because it contained asbestos)."
Indeed, NASA began buying putty from a New Jersey company. The experts working with it noted that it did not seem to seal the joints as well as the old putty, but they continued to use it anyway.
I wrote back in 2003: "As long as I am the only one reporting that NASA has for 20 years put petty 'environmental correctness' ahead of the lives of astronauts, I do not expect future missions to be any safer."
I stand by those words.
Pray for the safe return of the Discovery crew.
And pray that the American people pull the plug on NASA before it puts any more brave Americans at risk for their lives because of petty and meaningless concerns about the "environment."
Red6
Flying debris from the shuttle caused the crash in 2003. Two years later NASA still hasn't fixed the flying debris problem. Lot of taxpayers money down the drain. That's why I couldn't get thrilled over this last flight.
I still can't figure out why they use spray-on insulation in the first place. If the tank needs to be insulated, and it needs to be insulated every time, why not make the insulation a permanent part of the tank? You know, like, something that can't fall off?
SAVE A ROCK
(Then throw it at a environmentalist.)
NASA --> Not Able to Safely Aviate
Part of the blame of this whole BS foam problem should go to the EPA for making NASA change the foam formula (from Freon-based) and subsequently causing an increase in dangerous foam debris particles.
Hmmm, now I'm feeling a little thursty, perhaps I'll grab a cup of water with that fruity MTBE additive (in CA). The air I brethe is now slightly cleaner, but I'm probably 10 times more likely to die from this MTBE... Thank you, EPA.
*sigh*
WHY THEY DON'T USE FREON:
Imagine you owned the patent for Freon, and that patent was about to expire.
The product makes BILLIONS of dollars for your company because it is the best coolant ever invented.
So you spend a few million to convince the world that your own product is bad for the 'environment' and then introduce a NEW coolant that (coincidentally) you own the patent for.
Why would you do such a thing? re-read the first sentence- BILLIONS OF DOLLARS~! If others start producing freon after the patent expires your profits would go from billions to a small fraction of that.
The new, but much more corrosive, product keeps you making BILLIONS.
It doesn't matter if it does not work as good. And people actually die using it. Or that places in africa cannot deliver vaccines that need to be cooled, or the space shuttle disintegrates because they use an 'environmentally friendly' product...
What did this last oops cost the tax payer? And has any one been fired yet? No...thought so!
They were frozen. It was 28 degrees when they launched AFTER Morton Thiokol WARNED them not to fly. This guy is a conspiracy theory nut isn't he?
It's an article I posted.
I agree with the premise that environmentalist issues are of lowest priority when life, limb or eyesight is at stake.
I don't suggest killing NASA, but stopping the stupidity that leads to the unnecessary death of people because someone wants to save a bee or a tree.
By identifying the “process” of thought that led to this fatal error; the inaccurate setting of priorities, we might be able to prevent this from happening again. Nothing will change if we don’t attack the real problem.
Red6
So you're saying the new putty was not the reason?
Or is it all made up to begin with?
Red6
Even after the death of those American Astronauts.
Years later, out President and Congress forced brave Americans into space.
Pray for their safe return.
In 2001, the EPA gave NASA a waiver allowing them to use the freon-based foam. NASA has chosen not to go back to it.
Why?
Why doesn't anyone in the Mainstream Media ask NASA?
I agree, the o ring seal failure would not have been made healthy if there were some asbestose in the joint. Leaks are leaks and when they are this hot they grow. But he is not wrong about the change to "environmentally friendly" compounds and processes. All companies came under this edict in the Clinton years as a bone for the environmental support for the dems. Companies were encouraged to change processes or petition and prove there was no substitute process that would work. It did not matter if it did not work as well. Companies got recognition for not filing petitions. Nice, but finding good alternatives when the best one is taken away is always a problem. The result is many programs shouldered more risk. The shuttle being a good example.
This just in! They know exactly how extensive the damage is. Is it dangerous outside the atmosphere in any case, but the damage does not threaten the crew.
Beware of the flying debris inside the heads of NASA management... Something about having some screws loose...
Burt hasn't launched another spaceflight recently has he?
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.