[ExI] environmental friendliness blamed for both shuttle losses

[Lee Corbin]

>From http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33782

Oh, and don't overlook the part where the writer says
The original report is still there on NASA's website for any other enterprising journalist to go see for himself or herself.

Challenger, Columbia ... what next?
By Joseph Farah
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

"When NASA's environmental concerns resulted
in the tragic deaths of the Columbia crew, it 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 - NASA knew of a continuing problem with
foam insulation dating back six years. The new foam
had been chosen for shuttle mission - the day after
the Columbia  tragedy - because it was
"environmentally friendly."

"More than six 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.

(i.e. http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/katnik/sts87-12-23.html)

"Worse, this is 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.

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.

Problems are seldom corrected when they are not recognized."

END QUOTE.  And this has to be the tip of
the iceberg because all the rest of the economic
retardation is about one thousand times less
visible. Insidious processes everywhere, multiplying
the costs of everything. Who knows how much more
progress there'd have been since 1983 (twenty-five
years!)  without this collectivist/idealist fucking with
the economy?

Lee

P.S.  Oh---and for the distracting and irrelevant
attacks on who published this. Are we automatically
to reject out of hand everything that Pravda ever
said just because Stalin was wicked? Civilized and
rational discourse *demands* paying attention to the
arguments themselves, not to who puts them forward
or where they're published.