Posted on 01/23/2005 6:33:46 PM PST by wagglebee
This week marks the thirty-eighth anniversary of the launch pad fire of Apollo 1, which took the lives of Astronauts Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chaffee. In a grim irony, this same week also marks the nineteenth anniversary of the Challenger disaster, as well as the second anniversary of the loss of the space shuttle Columbia.
Though memorials are certainly in order, a closer examination of the nature and cause of each catastrophe reveals much about the nation throughout the past four decades. Particularly in the wake of the Columbia tragedy and its ensuing investigations, disturbing trends in NASA emerged.
On May 25, 1961, with America still riding high on the successful fifteen-minute flight of Alan Shepard, President John Kennedy gave a speech in which he committed America to "landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." Kennedy's aggressive timetable stipulated that the feat should be accomplished before the end of the decade.
But while his obvious intention was to surpass Soviet technology, the 1970 deadline held a personal angle as well. Undoubtedly, at the time that he made the speech, Kennedy fully intended to hold office until January 20, 1969, meaning that the possibility existed for the moon landing to occur during his tenure. What president could possibly hope for a more enduring legacy?
In reaction to Kennedy's assassination in 1963, America rededicated itself to the goal he had set. So the space program pressed forward at an almost unbelievable pace, with the first manned Apollo mission scheduled for barely five and a half years after Shepard's comparative barnstorming stunt.
In the frenzy to develop the technology for trans-lunar flight, the flammability of spacecraft cabin materials in a high-pressure oxygen environment was overlooked. Thus was the stage set for the tragic Apollo fire of January 27, 1967.
Nineteen years later, a different set of circumstances led to the loss of the space shuttle Challenger. Having been embarrassed by numerous delays in the previous shuttle flight, NASA was intent on seeing the Challenger launch on schedule. With budgets dependent on a demonstrated ability to establish the shuttle system as a reliable space ferry, key players within the Space Administration, in a complete departure from previous policy, decided to take an unnecessary risk.
Though experts warned of the danger posed by cold weather, and the loss of flexibility in the seals of the spacecraft's enormous boosters, such concerns were overridden. The craft was launched on schedule. The forewarned failures did indeed occur, and seven lives, along with a multibillion-dollar space vehicle, were needlessly sacrificed.
Yet as grim as were these occurrences, they pale in comparison to the fate of the space shuttle Columbia. In the years following the Challenger disaster, problems were noted and corrected, operating expertise was gained, and the nation's shuttle fleet established itself as a reliable, and even safe, mode of orbital transport.
After a dozen years of dependable flight, manufacturing processes for the giant fuel tank were altered – not to increase safety or dependability, but to be more "environmentally friendly." Immediately, problems with the tank began to manifest themselves, and risks to the orbiter became apparent. But owing to the Clintonian political forces of the 1990s, these dangers were never addressed. Eventually, as with all risk-taking on such high-technology ventures, the odds caught up with the Columbia.
But it was during the post-mortem of the Columbia disaster that the ominous changes in NASA became glaringly apparent. Rather than relentlessly pursuing the cause of the problem, and thus arriving at a proper fix, the behavior of NASA officials seemed an uncanny precursor to the 9/11 Commission, in which obvious causes of the disaster were suppressed for the sake of political considerations.
Clearly, NASA initially attempted to hide the fact that excessive deference to the twisted tenets of "political correctness" and environmental extremism had cost America its oldest shuttle orbiter, along with a crew of seven astronauts.
Whether it is the inarguable truth of unborn human life, the immutable nature of marriage, or the cruelly inalterable laws of physics, dire consequences are universally assured whenever reality is supplanted by the blindness of liberal ideology. Though not always as horrifically spectacular, the result is no less inevitable than the nightmarish shower of debris over East Texas that, once the effects of "political correctness" had been borne out, was all that remained of the glory of the space shuttle Columbia.
Clearly, NASA initially attempted to hide the fact that excessive deference to the twisted tenets of "political correctness" and environmental extremism had cost America its oldest shuttle orbiter, along with a crew of seven astronauts.
This needs to be repeated and often!
Having once worked for NASA -Houston, Johnson Space Center (Bldg 44) for a couple of years, I left gladly; with a pretty pathetic opinon of how NASA is ran.
We have the bottom of the barrel engineers, those too stupid to work elsewhere, who's only qualifications are that they have a pulse and can fog a mirror on command. Why? Well, NASA pays Lockheed, Ford, Martin and others by the body; not by the work. So, if you take a job at Lockheed and get the security clearance, NASA pays Lockheed $125/hour for your time, of which you will see approximately $30K/yr. This was 1988 prices; I'm sure you will see that the 2005 prices are far higher.
So, if you want a job you basically can never be fired from, that is stable, is full of 'union' protection, that has no work requirements; that doesn't pay all that well, but the benefits are great - NASA is the way to go. If you want more out of life; go outside.
The problem is nothing new. NASA should be shut down for 2 years; close everything and lay off everyone. Then re-open it with the premise that NO ONE who worked there is allowed back in. Then maybe, just maybe it can recapture the fire, the drive that it once had. The glory days are far, far gone.
Thought you'd be interested in this.
NASA is simply another bloated government money pit. I would love to see space travel continue and grow; however, it can clearly be done more efficiently if it is pursued by private corporations.
ping for later
I agree. I will say that I am not averse to government funds being used, but those funds have to be run through private corporations on an incentive/only basis. Otherwise those corporations will waste as much as N.A.S.A. does, and produce just as poorly as it has.
If private enterprise was in charge, I truly believe we would have manned space colonies by now. Private business understands the need for a "return on investment," government will NEVER adopt this practice. A few months ago a manned space vehicle was launched to win a $20 million prize, this is a pitance compared to the BILLIONS the federal government has poured into space travel. We knew 20 years ago that the Space Shuttles were becoming obsolete, yet little was done to explore other avenues.
Have I ever mentioned that I think we already have a spaceplane? I believe we have an "Aurora Class" craft that is not only capable of traveling somewhere between mach eight and twelve, but can go straight up until it enters space and tool around there for periods of time before coming back to earth.
There are times when I get a chuckle out of the idea that we're just now discovering the ramjet technology on that test vehicle dropped form B52s over the pacific.
Nobody will convince me that we retired the Blackbird with no backup. Despite the fact that our satellites are increibly capable, I still believe there is a need for aircraft in the surveylance field. With stealth, I believe that is being achieved today as never before.
I'm sure you're correct, but there still needs to be more.
I do agree.
That's why private enterprise has not given us manned space colonies ...
I agree with most of your comments, but let us remember a few things. N.A.S.A. did not execute proper quality control on the Hubble's mirror. It was only marginally effective until a fix was lofted to repair it. I'm just not convinced that N.A.S.A. has what it takes even for this. Take a look at the space station. I rest my case. And that is considered to be an international space station. We don't even get credit for that after spending about 80% of the money to put it up there.
I don't know the details, but I suspect that it became operational about the time they brought the Stealth into public and as you mentioned, retired the blackbird.
Perhaps it is something that has the performance of the blackbird, but with F-117 stealthiness.
ping
Back when Groom Lake was still fluorishing, we had some interesting sonic booms over Los Angeles, as craft headed up to the base. Backing off over Los Angeles headed for the area above Las Vegas led us to believe something was moving pretty quick on the tail end of operations.
Youre right....NASA needs to be reformed all around. The Space Station is a total waste of money and is essentially a international make work project, sorta like science foreign aid.
I have heard Walter Cunningham explain, more than once, that this is NOT true. I do not have first hand knowledge but have great respect for a man with his credentials.
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.