38 replies to this topic

[av8kyl]

My heart goes out to the families of those who were lost. I think that this has the possibility of setting back our space programs. These astronauts, I feel, would not want us to slow our ascent into the universe. It's just scary to know that these tragic (and massively expensive) accidents pose a threat to our immediate expansion into the stars. Hopefully people will, instead of pulling back from space, push for research towards safer, faster, more economical vessels.

[Lazarus Long]

I don't know where to begin...

I am, like so many others still trying to resolve the calamity in all its scope and detail. First and foremost my heart goes out to the families, friends and all of us, the extended family worldwide that care about these missions, those who have never stopped keeping vigil for these flights. I say to them in particular that we will remember and honor those who lead our way at all too real risk, against the darkness that is ignorance and complacency with our lot, all our lives.

I am reminded, as all who think must be, of Challenger and I think we should respect this comparison not only for its mere tragic detail but to learn from the lessons learned then again about what we need to address to make the sacrifice made by these true heroes of mankind worth the cost. One of the most important lessons is not to let this deter us from our purpose, from that very direction that these leaders have blazed.

I am overcome with grief but not shock and I can only say it is not now the time to address all the alternatives no matter that it is inherent in the retrospection of this kind of event. We can best honor these fallen by NOT repeating the mistake of Challenger's aftermath. We must ground the fleet for good reason, INSPECTION IS REQUIRED!!

BUT WE CANNOT LET THE FLEET STAY GROUNDED!

We should never avert our gaze away from our goals and challenges. We also must accept that this fleet must be upgraded and replaced and the building of this next generation is our best way to honor these fallen heroes. These aren't just heroes from conflict, they have sacrificed themselves in the quest for knowledge and truths shared by all humanity.

These are the true leaders taking us all forward on that elusive path many confuse between evolution and progress. Evolution is a random process, a chance event. Progress is only through determined and/or consequential effort, and its worth as motive to life itself is why we do it.

I admit that I am biased, I have an agenda and I would gladly go right now and stand in line to be next to fly this kind of mission and that is even though I have long said these birds are obsolete and need replacement.

Every time I boot my computer I see a picture of this ship, the Columbia launching on a beautiful Florida morning, it is my desktop and has been for a year.

Understand this all those of you that seek immortality, some risks are worth taking, demand that they are taken and when we as a species decide that we are too timid to make this defiant gesture against our mortality then we as a species are closer to extinction.

Also understand this people of Earth, this crew, this picture that you are all seeing of seven simple souls exemplifies all that it means to be who we are as Americans. Immigrants and people of all color, citizens of many cultures, people of simple courage, common dignity, and individual character that defies all stereotype which, even my fellow countrymen believe of themselves, and thank goodness we are.

Let us meet this Challenge of the loss of our Columbia and let us do so by going onward and beyond. Columbia has closed its circle of history. Now begins the duty to investigate the event in order to secure that the loss is not in vain. Let us also never forget to salute and share love for not only the dead but for those living families that have to go forward from this most personal loss, one that is much more poignant then most of us less close can feel.

Take the time necessary to meditate upon our collective loss and then return to the more important duty we share with this crew, we will roll up our sleeves, wipe back our tears and never fear my fellow humans, we will go back to work. We will yet make song of this tragedy, name stars for these fallen explorers, and reap the harvest these Challengers of mortality have made of fertile ground.

So long as we live, let us remember their lives as examples of ultimate personal sacrifice. They have earned a place as a critical marker for the history of all mankind being written at this moment in time. I bow my head in contemplation of their loss and raise my eyes to the heavens in gratitude of their individual sacrifice for me, my children, and us all. We are all made better for the lives of these lost astronauts.


Rick Husband had just one other space flight under his belt before he was given the role of commander. "I think a lot of it has to do with being in the right place at the right time, for starters," Husband, a 45-year-old Air Force colonel from Amarillo, Texas, said during a preflight interview. The former test pilot was selected as an astronaut in 1994 on his fourth try. Space flight was his lifelong passion, along with singing. Husband, a baritone, had barbershop quartet experience and sang in church choirs.


William McCool said one of the most nerve-racking parts of training was learning to draw blood — from others. Columbia’s two pilots were exempted from invasive medical tests in orbit, like blood draws. That meant he and his commander had to draw blood from their crewmates. McCool felt bad practicing on volunteers. "I didn’t want to inflict pain," he said before the flight. The former Navy test pilot became an astronaut in 1996. This was the first space flight for McCool, 41, who grew up in Lubbock, Texas.


Michael Anderson loved flying, both in aircraft and spacecraft, but he disliked being launched. "There’s always that unknown," he said before the flight. Anderson, 43, the son of an Air Force man, grew up on military bases. He was flying for the Air Force when NASA chose him in 1994 as one of only a handful of black astronauts. He traveled to Russia’s Mir space station in 1998. He was a lieutenant colonel and in charge of Columbia’s dozens of experiments. His hometown was Spokane, Wash.


Kalpana Chawla wanted to design aircraft when she emigrated to the United States from India in the 1980s. The space program was the furthest thing from her mind. But "one thing led to another," the 41-year-old engineer said, and she was chosen as an astronaut in 1994. On her only other space flight, in 1996, Chawla made mistakes that sent a satellite tumbling out of control, and two spacewalkers had to go out and capture it. Some saw this flight as her chance to redeem herself.


David Brown was a Navy novelty: a jet pilot as well as a doctor. He was also probably the only NASA astronaut to have worked as a circus acrobat. (It was a summer job during college.) He said what he learned about "the teamwork and the safety and the staying focused" carried over to his space job. He joined the Navy after his medical internship, and held a captain's rank. NASA chose him as an astronaut in 1996. This was the 46-year-old Virginia native's first space flight.


Laurel Clark, a Navy physician who worked undersea, likened Columbia's numerous launch delays to a marathon in which the finish line kept moving out five miles. "You’ve got to slow back down and maintain a pace," she said. The 41-year-old Clark was a diving medical officer aboard submarines and then a naval flight surgeon. She became an astronaut in 1996. Clark's chief task was to help with Columbia’s science experiments. Her hometown was Racine, Wis.


Ilan Ramon, a colonel in Israel’s air force, was the first Israeli to be launched into space. His mother and grandmother survived the Auschwitz death camp. Like his Zionist father, the astronaut fought for his country, in the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and the Lebanon War in 1982. He took part in the 1981 air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor. Ramon, 48, was selected as an astronaut in 1997 and moved to Houston in 1998 to train for a flight. He called Tel Aviv home.

[bobdrake12]

Immigrants and people of all color, citizens of many cultures, people of simple courage, common dignity, and individual character that defies all stereotype which, even my fellow countrymen believe of themselves, and thank goodness we are.

Lazarus Long,

All the astronauts were over-achievers, and they will be missed.

I never did understand the bigotry of this Type 0 civilization.

bob

http://story.news.ya....html&e=1&ncid=



The space shuttle Columbia crew, from left, Israeli astronaut payload specialist Ilan Ramon, mission specialist David Brown. pilot William McCool, commander Rick Husband, and mission specialists Laurel Clark, Michael P. Anderson, and Kalpana Chawla sit at the breakfast table at crew headquarters in Cape Canaveral, Fla. Jan. 16, 2003 prior to suiting up for their launch. Space shuttle Columbia broke apart in flames 200,000 feet over Texas on Saturday, killing all seven astronauts just minutes before they were to land in Florida.(AP Photo/NASA)

Edited by bobdrake12, 01 February 2003 - 08:58 PM.

[Omnido]

[:o] [cry]

It truly is a sad day, and a reminder of our limited abilities.
I just found this out earlier today. For the first time In my life, I was shocked and deeply saddened, as though I knew these people as my own blood.
In truth, they were. Not genetically, or kindred, but in spirit.
These people were pioneers, working to help forge a better tomorrow, and help bring freedom from this prison rock that many call "Home."
I felt the blow personally, like the knife of capitalism had struck me straight in the heart.
And then I read the headlines: "NASA's oldest shuttle..." and it all begins to make sense to me.
Our space program is a joke.
It has always been a joke, ever since the cold war.

Look at what we have: The brightest of the worlds thinkers, all crowded together in various rooms, given a few million dollars and told to invent human technological brilliance and achievement. All while the capitalistic, repulsive, selfish, and hedonistic dogs of society trade equities, stock market shares, and argue subjective values over materialism, and continuing to cut their funding of NASA and other research groups merely on the premise of "Lack of popular interest". [angry]

NASA could have been (and still can be) our greatest collection of minds and developments.
They still develop wondrous advances and finally some few are beginning to be used throughout the common world...
But still we fall prey to lack of public interest.

No interest = no funding.
No funding = inadequate tools.
Inadequate tools = extensive use of shortcuts

NASA's best engineers will tell you that their space flight technology is far outdated, and to add insult to injury, the Military has far surpassed NASA's development speed.
Must we remind the Arrogant militia that the majority of their "Toys" were all developed and invented by the same brilliant minds?

I agree with Lazurus, but I am also somewhat biased myself.
Its NEVER been a question of "IF" or "HOW", its always been a question of "WHEN"
You ask any modern scientist or engineer if space flight is feasible, and they will all tell you the same thing:

"We've been able to fly in space for far cheaper, and far more safely than we do for over 25 years. But ever since challenger, the people have lost interest, and investors are sketchy about losing their money. Its all about money these days..."

Where are our speakers!?
Who will stand up against this steel anchor that binds us to limited development?
It APPAULS me to witness 2 tragedies like this; both a result of the effects of capitalism.

We all remember the Challenger, so no need to elaborate.
However, what most people are not aware of is that NASA's engineers KNEW Challenger wouldn't make it if they launched it too early. They knew it and they told the launch supervisor(s) this.
But no.
They wouldn't listen.
They had a "Public image" to keep, and investors were already growing impatient.
Those 7 astronauts died because of capitalism and hedonism.
They died for a 50/50 chance to keep NASA's funding.
And when Richard Feynman adressed the public, telling them all that indeed it was due to a premature launch and thermal conditions that were way below their designed flight limits, the engineers shook the heads and wept in silence. It wasn't enough for them to tell their Boss's investors this, an no. They had to wait until the great Nobel Prize winning Physicist Richard Feynman himself told them what they already knew.

Now this...
Another tragedy that could have been avoided.
My heart goes out to the families of these people, and to those of them who had children.
Their children will soon know the truth, that not only were their parents frontiersmen of the future, but that they died as a result of this societies disconcern and lack of interest.

Capitalism is building a world of Hedonism and automation...if this society doesn't wake up to the possibilities soon, the question will eventually be: "Why bother?"

[DJS]

I am really at a loss for words. Lazarus, your words were inspiring. I hope that the heros on board Columbia felt no pain. Also, I am disappointed that Bush didn't turn this tragedy into the beginning of a new hope by announcing a bold new initiative to put a man on Mars. Maybe he didn't think it was the appropriate time and place. I thought it was.

Edited by Kissinger, 02 February 2003 - 01:01 PM.

[Thomas]

A maned missions are silly. Too expensive to maintain. And too dangerous.

Or - we have to accept the tragedy as "normal".

We can't go both ways.

What if there were massive simulations of what might go wrong in advance? One of them, what happens in reentry, if the wing is damaged? NASA could new, that the come back is not safe, and that a rescue mission is necessary.

Again, we need more CPU power to simulate, to simulate and to simulate some more!

- Thomas

[DJS]

A maned missions are silly. Too expensive to maintain. And too dangerous.

Manned missions are silly?!?!? That is an insult to the men and women of Columbia who lost their lifes for a cause that I think all of us find to be noble and true. I take offense. Sometimes Thomas, you have to think outside the box. Everyone here keeps complaining about capitalism and how it is responsible for NASA's sorry state. Well guess what guys, capitalism is here to stay. Get use to it. If you really want the space program to receive adequate funding then you need to inspire the American public which is responsible for granting NASA its funding. Putting a man on the moon inspires! We complain about the state of NASA now, imagine the state of our space program if the moon landing had never happened. Putting a man on Mars will inspire! You need the grand plans to create a venue for the more mundane projects. The average person doesn't care about the effects of weightlessness on a rat or a crystal formation. They care about seeing a human stepping out of their craft onto the surface of Mars, onto another freakin planet! That is how you captivate the hearts and minds of a people, and in the world that we live in that is the only way.

Edited by Kissinger, 02 February 2003 - 01:11 PM.

[Omnido]

Do not place too much faith in the degenerative, pathetic, selfish system known as capitalism.
I assure you, it will fall.
I assure you, it will fail.
And I also assure you, I will not stand for it.
Capitalism is an insult to to every philosophy that exists.
Sheep herding sheep.
Blind leading blind.
Its end has been predicted, as all former states of society have been thusly predicted.
If we are to advance, we will have to rid ourselves of it. Or if you prefer, "Trancend" it.
I assure you, I will not stand idly by and watch it consume my life, so long as I have any power to oppose it, and/or rid myself of its filthy interference.

"I have nothing against the world, its the government and economy that I hate.
I have nothing against God, its his fan-clubs that I hate."

[DJS]

Do not place too much faith in the degenerative, pathetic, selfish system known as capitalism.
I assure you, it will fall.
I assure you, it will fail.

What does this have to do with the Columbia disaster? I think you are on the wrong thread.

So you are against capitalism? Move to Cuba. Capitalism is doing just fine. It has proven that it is a system that works. It is a system which takes into account human nature. You ramble on about how capitalism will fail, but you give no evidence to support you contentions. I do not take you seriously.

[Omnido]

Ah I see, my apologies.
I'm far too ingrained within the system and understand its intricacies, and I immediately make (and continue to remake) the mistake of assuming that all others who are within the system take a moment to step outside of it and see it for what it truly is.

Move to Cuba? Why would I do that when this "system" is far more convenient?
Have you ever heard of "The survivors always side with the victorious underdog, no matter how strong the current overlord." ?

The only reason why capitalism is successful, is because everyone is taught to believe that it is the only viable solution.
Those who teach this ideal are themselves supported by those who benefit the most from it, mainly those who have the greatest amounts of capital. And who are these people? Let me name just a few.

1) Oil Tycoons (Leading the market in fossil fuel processing for worlds production of energy)
2) Transportation Tycoons (vehicle, aircraft, and watercraft manufacturers)
3) Corporate Tycoons (C.E.O's of numerous companies who control the market(s) behind all majorly used products, most of which are based upon current popularity, decided by and attributed to entertainment and/or convenience)

Now lets name the "Important" members of the so called civilization, from without them none of modern capitalistic foundations would have ever existed.

1) Research scientists, engineers, and professors.

Now in hindsight, these individuals are no where near close to possessing the extreme amounts of capital (in terms of liquidation of assets)
that their developments would generate.
Richard P Feynman first postulated the ideas behind nanotechnology decades ago, and he wasn't a corporate billionaire.
He was a Nobel prize winning physicist who's passion to unlock the mysteries of this universes operation(s) led us to many a great discovery, and many new developments hence by those who would pursue his dream.

"Money talks, and Bullshit walks."

How much do you think a NASA employee gets paid?
I bet you a corporate executive makes almost 3 times what NASA staff members do, and NASA members all have Degrees.
Most of which are Masters, and several Ph.D's.

"Ever heard of the golden rule? He who has the gold makes the rules."

That is why Challenger was lost.
That is why Columbia was lost.

Stop and take a good look at our supposed "Civilization" for a moment, and tell me where (and/or how) you can disagree.

I'll wager for nearly every positive development you can prescribe as a direct result of capitalism, there was a brilliant, clever, and innovative mind at its roots, as well as a greedy, selfish, and cut-throat capitalist who took advantage of it for his own self-interest.

Now I do not mean to dis all capitalists. There are some few who donate millions for good causes (many of which are considered as "lost causes") and rightly so. Private funding by people who endeavor to improve all of humanity is a good sign of compassionate benevolence and nobility. However, such unique individuals are a rare and dying breed, as their "Free-giving" spirits do not make them any richer.

I am against capitalism because:

1) Its outdated
2) Its no longer required
3) There are other alternatives available for exploration
4) It is ultimately self-engrossing, encouraging a life of automation and hedonism.

Who is to say what a person should or should not hold as their highest interest?
That is a matter of personal choice.
However, when those choices begin to infringe on the alternate choices of others; especially when those alternate choices can save lives, bring greater productivity, and endeavor to improve our development as a species, that is where I put my foot down.

"Suppression and oppression are the basic causes of depression. If you relieve those a person can lift their head, become well, become happy with life."  
--L. Ron Hubbard

[Lazarus Long]

Just to rattle everyone's cage a little on this there is linkage to what Omnido alludes to.

I have said before I am a pilot, I have also worked within this industry as a corporate VP, Director of Operations, and managed a fleet and facilities for a Flight School and an Aircraft Manufacturer's Dealership.' I sold new and used aircraft and was responsible for fleet maintenance, school operations, and staff.

Granted, I wasn't flying shuttles, though I did get to fly Citation jets.

I wasn't running on a NASA scale budget, I was supposed to turn a profit.

I am familar with a trend that can be corroborated from many sources, A&P Mechanics(Airframe & Powerplant) are the cheapest component in the aircraft and the next cheapest component is the pilot. FAA aircraft inspection in this country for Commercial Aviation is low end weighted just like traffic enforcement everywhere, they use profiles.

They target enforcement to the least affluent operators for the logical expedient that there is where they find the highest probability of safety violations.

Case in point.

Recently, only a few weeks before the Columbia crashed, a commuter airliner crashed on departure from a Regional Airport in I believe Charlotte, North Carolina. The Beech 1900 had been grounded by the A&P the night before flight on routine inspection. The lineman's supervisor came in and overroad that mechanic and ordered the aircraft back into service. Within a few hours the failure occured as the A&P suspected in the manner predicted, immediately on take off, and all the passengers, crew, and some people on the ground were killed.

I understand both sides because I have spent more than a few sleepless nights working with my mechanics, to get a bird back into the air, and I have paid for it in sweat and blood from owners that couldn't tolerate safety costs. I earned the respect of my mechanics because I would never second guess that there was a problem but they were also intolerant or afraid of brainstorming for alternative methodologies for repair. They were unforgiving in not wanting to be involved in "experimenting". Their careers and reputations were constantly on the line and into the 1990's Aircraft Mechanics consistently work longer hours and are paid less then a specialty auto mechanic for BMW, Jag's etc.

I solved a lot of headaches by simply having operating spares routinely available and kept a very good record for operational safety through proactive inspectin schedules and "swapping out" critical components before failure at times. But I cut into profits this way in consideration of returning capital back into the fleet and my staff. Due to that, even though I was in the black on an annual basis afer two years, the profit level was insufficient for the investors and they sold the entire operation to a commuter airline that needed the facilities that I had designed and constructed.

This is never easy but when you make mistakes people will die.

I reserve the right to comment later on what I am studying of the data coming from NASA but they are spending almost as much time right now (and tragically for valid reasons) worrying about spining their response to media and the public, as they are in finding debris.

I have grave suspicions that I would prefer to wait on for more detail to discuss, but I have a serious question that goes to the simple operating trust concern and have to get a detailed answer:

How much did ground control discuss with Com. Husband about what they saw at departure?

I would be thankful for help in this if others of you see mention of this detail. So far I haven't heard this addressed clearly.

Was he ever even granted an option of going EVA and looking for damage on a visual inspection?

One picture is worth ten thousand... In a situation like this it is standard for most test pilots. On the ground we call it a walk around and in orbit it would be easier.

I'm not talking about fixing the problem, just asking to find out if there was one. NASA is like so many governmental agencies they have learned denial of a problem is generally preferable to facing it. Usually bad news messengers take the blame.

Apollo 13 wasn't in the planning book. We have to meet what comes not build a checklist that is inviolate. I know this, If I had heard that I had possible tile damage, and I was the Commander and PIC, I would take a walk. And frankly they can bust me later. Discipline has its limits. The very reason we want astronauts, is so someone on the spot gets to be Pilot In Command.

Command means that no deskjocky joysticker is supposed to filter my info. Bureaucrats shouldn't be second guessing the astronauts. Once the bird's in flight the Captain of the ship is in charge. Mission Control is for guidance, not command decision. This was what got the Soviets in trouble and it appears we are becoming more like them, not less.

Houston we have a problem.

I argue that there is a widespread need for reform of the aviation industry but for all the bad we do this is still the best record in the history of technological advance. Is there room anyway for improvement, not only at NASA, but throughout the entire system?

Yes, I think there is.

Anyone who is thinking about going off world had better not be dependant on this infrustructure. We need a Private Enterprise approach and that is why I disagree with Omnido but I also think we MUST create new methodologies that apply modern tech and materials that can improve by orders of magnitude safety and reliability.

We need to get away from combustible fuel approaches and work with field driven and electric turbines. We have numerous non conventional methods for high altitude insertion that even NASA began developing. Too much has been going into the cost overruns of the shuttle since the beginning. It has done so at the expense of not one but many alternative methods. In fact this even applies to the popular system of transportion not just the Space Programs.

I think it may take a radical leap by a country like China that decides to stop following our tech system in lock-step to initiate the paradigm shift as a direct result of what Omnido is suggesting "the powers that be" do have TOO MUCH invested in this infrustructure to seriously contemplate its replacement, unless of course they are confident of controlling the newer systems of power production when they come online.

Even after saying all this I still insist we fix the birds and fly them.

But it is also now the time for building the next generations of orbital insertion vehicles.

[Cyto]

So $15.4 billion budget for 2004. neat stuff.

It would be neat to have one of those asteroid defense satellites.

People are trying to get them to think about it.






I think we should cancel the BBQ.

[Lazarus Long]

Nice article DH and great links on the page. Thanks!

The author and these scientists must have been reading Bob's and my posts. I still say lets corral and mine the suckers and not wait for them to come to us, lets go get them.

Seriously, we need to shift HOW WE THINK about deep space development, not just the technologies. Part of the needed paradigm shift is in changing from thinking linearly to a multidimensional perspective. Only those that can do this need apply, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."

[DJS]

"Suppression and oppression are the basic causes of depression. If you relieve those a person can lift their head, become well, become happy with life."  
--L. Ron Hubbard

You end your argument by quoting LR Hubbard, how appropriate! [wacko] . You make perfect sense to me now. Your logic is so off base and so against everything I believe in that it would be counterproductive for me to argue with you. It would be like hiting my head against a wall over and over again.

[Omnido]

[huh] [ggg]
Hmm Perhaps I suggest a better approach then?

Logic is merely a tool. It is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.
The mere statement that you refer to this as an "Argument" immediately sounds more like fighting words.
In the end, most of the soldiers on the battlefield have nothing against their enemies. No, rather, they have pride in their "duty" and a loyalty to their leaders, those who are truly making all the decisions.

It was not my intent to argue with you Kissinger. I prefer to debate or rather "Discuss" opinions and ideas, test them for logical and rational validity (in which case many have little or no experience in doing as such) and attempt to decide which is the most productive course of action or approach to a problem.

Logic has been my favorite tool of thought and action for many years now.
I tried beliefs, they failed to produce consistent results based upon evidence.
I tried spiritualism, which yielded more ambiguity than discernable results, although for the sake of aesthetics its quite appealing in many of its current forms.

All I was left with was arbitrary thought, decision, and action, which I later concluded is mostly supported by basic instincts and "gut" intuition. Both of which are essentially "Out of date" and extremely limited in terms of a testable, repeatable, and reliable method with which to anchor ones life.

Thus I learned Logic, and the whole of existence started to fit into nicely definable pieces.
Granted, I haven't solved the ultimate enigma, or even deciphered what the puzzle is supposed to be, let alone even finding all of the necessary pieces. But I have a tool that continues to serve its function without any inherent flaw of its own, and if used correctly, has thus far consistently produced predictable and accurate results.

"If it aint broke, why fix it?"

Until a better system of evaluating thoughts, feelings, and actions in response to perceived reality is discovered or invented, I will stick with what works.

Ironically, many people choose the attitude of "Whatever works best for you..." when in reality, Logic works best for anyone. For those who would claim that statement false, I would ask them to logically explain why.
[B)]
Thus you see the instant dillema, as well as the effects as a result.

You see, everyone uses a sort of "Logic" of there own.
Not many act completely arbitrarily, for such action would render them nearly incapable of function within a civilization that both requires and incorporates intelligence.
No, we indeed do all have or own logic, the problems arise from lack of successful communication, comprehension, and understanding.
Please don't go hitting your head on a brick wall, the wall will mostly likely win.
Rather, indulge me, and yourself too for a moment.
If our opinions vary, perhaps we can establish some fundamental reason(s) why, and endeavor to work together when exchanging ideas.
To merely give up solves nothing, but Its an avenue that I leave open for anyone, including myself.
Id much rather work cooperatively.

Laz said:

"I think it may take a radical leap by a country..."

And that it is. Radical vision is not necessarily completely arbitrary either.
But as you know all too well Laz, when you put the greatest of minds together and tell them that money is of no concern, they quickly come up with many grand schemes, and their imaginations conjure up all sorts of amazing ideas.
The nice thing about those ideas is: In the hands of the most determined and productive engineers, researchers, and professors, marvelous things do happen!

In the end, the problem is not one of possibility.
It is one of politics.
For decades, it has always been about politics.
I have addressed similar issues about this before, as Im sure you are aware.

John F Kennedy told the people "We will accomplish these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." And yet, it was a race. We had a competition, a driving force, and that is why we succeeded.

But as you know well Laz, the engineers and researchers have this drive regardless. They aren't fueled by the passion of ego, attempting to defeat some enemy or seeking prestige for their own namesake, no. They merely view the challenge as a possible path to greater discovery. For those who seek knowledge with a passion, indeed with a unyielding spirit and love, they will work towards it with all their might, even if all they can do is post their ideas on a forum.

"Those in power" know this, and that is why they fear the consequences resulting from the endeavors of those brilliant minded people.

Fear and politics are one of our larger oppositional forces.
And as we all know (or as all of those posting here should know) Fear breeds hate, and hate breeds destruction.
People will always despise what they hate, and always endeavor to eliminate whatever consequences generate their fears, namely, the opposition.

I'm not suggesting that we drop the hammer and declare Capitalism obsolete (which it is in this as well as many other philosophers opinion(s) ) but rather that steps be taken towards development of a different system, one that could eventually render the current one obsolete and replace it with as little resistance and apprehension as possible.

I know it can be done, and others do too.
For those of us who wish to make a better life for ourselves, we simply want freedom and liberty; the trademarks of what this country was originally founded upon.
I only seek to accomplish something greater than becoming a greedy merchant, an underpaid thinker, or an overworked manual laborer.
Entertainment is nice, but we all know that you cant please everyone all the time, and Id much rather be working towards something greater than mere self-indulgence for its own sake.

Is that asking too much?

[DJS]

Fair enough Omnido. Just don't start in with the dianetics lol . Why don't you come to the "Why war with Iraq" thread and we can debate? I have read my share of Chomsky so be prepared.

[Lazarus Long]

Money is always an issue until we transcend the current methodology of conceptualization for resources. Capitalism and Communism are obsolete. I insist the real issue is Evolutionary Psychology. Capital is only a conceptualization of "resource" on a spectrum from minimal needs to an extreme psychological materialistic dependancy for self definition.

The analogy for wealth in respect to design parameters is to think of wealth as conceptual fuel. The more you have the farther you can go but there isn't any unlimited method for tapping energy (fuel), any more than wealth, yet.

Clearly this is an old debate, which as I alluded to, DOES effect performance. But the shift of philosophy is even more fundamental then just a question of economics, like beauty, it may have been bureaucracy that killed the beast. I have never yet seen a socialist system that didn't begin to collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracy, so I am not sure that is where the solution will be found though it is a contributing factor to the problem. A fundamental issue is the Will to accomplish this and I think this society is losing that, and as separate aspect that I will pick up there I also think that the militarization of Near Space will basically parasitize what's left of that will and divert vital resources down a black hole.

The reason I think Private Enterprise is preferrable is because they are required to address more efficient design in order to meet cost as a reality and that means making simpler methods more practically applicable.

Basically necessity is that mother of invention that works from a grass roots level like evolution. This means greater diversity of approach and greater recognition of the balancing challenges of power-source-acquisition, efficiency (conservation & reliability), safety, and crew integration, as well as costs.

I have thought of going abroad to work within smaller States that have a greater per capita sense of commitment. I also think that we MUST keep Civilian access to orbital and outer space open so perhaps we can get the UN Charter to begin a program.

But of course, they can't even pay for the programs they already have.

Yes, as Kissinger says, please join in the discussion about Iraq and also reopen the Socialism versus Capitalism thread that has been dormant. The topic is valid but not specifically german to an analysis of what went wrong and how to make it right. It is ancillary however, not irrelevant.

[DJS]

I also think that we MUST keep Civilian access to orbital and outer space open so perhaps we can get the UN Charter to begin a prorgam.

Please Lazarus, no UN endorsements. Why not just have more joint missions? Isn't that more practical?

Also

Omnido, I will grant you that there are times where the profit motive can be counterproductive to society as a whole. But as Lazarus said above, socialist systems almost always self destruct. What are alternatives are there?

[immortalitysystems.com]

Regarding space travel,

the Germans build the V1 and V2 rockets ( the men and the technology resulting out of that took us to the moon), when they were losing the war. The "V" stands for "Vergelltung" English "vengeance".
Will we develop the technology to move and live in orbital space when there is enough nuclear- bio- chemical fallout on the surface of our planet?
Any organism is only as capably as it has to be. Survival is a good mother of invention.

EXTRA TERRESTRIAL MIGRATION and GENE ENGINEERING will lead to IMMORTALITY.

Ad Astra,
Alfred

[wannabe]

In honor of our fallen astronauts:
Here is a synthesis joining space travel, ancient history, touching on the secretive masonic aspect of NASA, and our immortality [!]
Perhaps our astronauts are potentially much more of a link to our personal immortalization that we generally concieve-- beyond just getting us off planet and out of various dangers' possible path.

-- wannabe
Article in full here-- http://www.lunaranom.../prometheus.htm

The “Golden Apples of Cydonia” were a fundamental focus for the ancient
Greeks, a fruit whose mere existence set in motion a cascading series of
events – from the legendary superhuman feats of Heracles (Hercules), to the
infamous Trojan War of Homer’s lliad -- ultimately destined to affect the
fate of all Mankind

It was this seemingly innocent wedding gift, which would one day trigger the
most catastrophic, long-term conflict in all of ancient Greece.  Literally, a
“gift of the gods” -- given to Zeus (the chief god of the Olympians) by Hera
(his chief consort). Zeus treasured these “Cydonia Apples” so much, it is
written, that he placed them in a “special garden” where they could forever bear
more fruit … “the Garden of Hesperides.”

Given that we are dealing with extremely ancient mythological beliefs,
demonstrably (if inexplicably) well entrenched in both the international
astronomical community as well as the



Masonic membership
of “modern” NASA, an example of how “Masons” view these arcane mythologies is
critical.  The following is from



MASONIC FORUM Magazine
– an on-line discussion group devoted to Masonic beliefs world-wide:  

“To Themis was also attributed the birth of the Hesperides, who, like
Pegas, were born and were living in the Extreme Occident, at the foot of
the Mount Atlas. The Hesperides were watching the golden apples, the
fruits of immortality, from the Gods' Orchard. A common point of the
symbolic interpretations is the equivalence between apple and knowledge.
In the medieval and Renaissance times the apple was thought to contain the
symbolic image of the knowledge, because cut in two across one can see a
pentagram in it, the symbol of the science in the initiatic schools.”

So, the “Cydonian Apples,” like their Biblical counterparts, when consumed
gave one Eternal Life … AND “the knowledge of the gods.”

“A common point of the symbolic
interpretations is the equivalence between apple and knowledge ….”

Sounds an awful lot like an extremely distorted, ancient metaphor for the
transcendental knowledge and almost unimaginable power latent in 



Hyperdimensional Physics[/color]
… which – just “coincidentally?” – now lies geometrically encoded at
another  “Cydonia” … on Mars. 

This astonishing connection -- between an ancient Grecian city and its modern
Martian counterpart -- begins in ancient Greece … in none other than Homer’s
recitation in “The Iliad” of the infamous Trojan War.

A War initiated, some have claimed by … Themis--

"Zeus plans with Themis to bring about the Trojan war." -The
Cypria Frag 1 (from Proclus, Chretomathy i[/color])[/color]

A War ultimately triggered, NOT by the “Face of Helen” and her
“thousand ships” (as we all learned in school) … but by Eris -- the goddess of
Discord, daughter of Hera and Zeus, twin sister of Ares … the Martian
God of War. 

Eris … who, in a fit on anger at not being invited to another wedding
banquet, throws one of the Golden Cydonia Apples (redundant Mars connection
number two…) into the wedding feast, seeking to create some major “Discord.” She
succeeds … and the rest is Greek mythology, ending ten years later in

the fall of Troy.

Following “the Illiad,” Homer writes his epic sequel to his original
tragic tale: what occurred after this defining War: “The Odyssey.” 

There is a fascinating arc here: from Homer’s epic Odyssey … through
Arthur Clarke and Stanley Kubrick’s classic adaptation, “2001: A Space Odyssey”…
to NASA’s current Mars Odyssey, which (“coincidentally?”) arrived
in 2001 ….

Themis –  “NASA’s electronic oracle on Odyssey” --  “the mother of
Prometheus” herself, is also “the
mother of the Hesperides”—

The same group of goddesses (below) charged by Zeus with guarding this
“highest secret” of the gods – a fruit (the “Apple of Cydonia”) endowed with
immortality itself …. In other words, through Themis’s daughters – the
Hesperides – a third remarkable connection to “Cydonia!”

 

In the mythology, Heracles (Hercules) – the superhuman hero representative
of  “mortals” -- ultimately is asked (as part of his twelve labors)


to steal three “Cydonia Apples” from the “the Garden of Hesperides.” 
To do so, he first has to free Prometheus from his unending pain, by killing the
vulture (eagle?) that has been tormenting the chained Titan.  Prometheus, when
freed, reveals to Heracles a foolproof plan for successfully bringing back three
“Apples”-- thus culminating his agenda to make Man equal to the gods, by
arranging for the ultimate gift of Immortality!

A gift, once again, inextricably linked to “Cydonia” … by name.

*   *   *

So, is all this, NASA’s convoluted, ritually symbolic way of acknowledging
("nudge, nudge, wink, wink … say no more") that which THEMIS has already
found – namely, the stunning revelation of a "City underneath the ice,"
waiting at Cydonia … and what it has preserved?

Or, is this melding of ancient myths and modern NASA programs a promise of
additional wonders yet to come … unimaginable wonders … that, through THEMIS
“powers of the oracle,” are yet to be confirmed … before Prometheus can
“liberate” their gifts?

What was it O’Keefe said to the Los Angeles Times--

“…with the new technology, where we go next will only be limited by our
imagination.”

Article in full here-- http://www.lunaranom.../prometheus.htm

[ocsrazor]

Hi Gang,

Just wanted to add a personal perspective to the earlier budding discussion about private vs public space program. I don't think capitalism is the problem with the space program, but the interface between private contractors and a government run program is usually a disaster. I am a big advocate of private space programs because it puts the responsibility for safety squarely on the shoulders of the company performing launches and consolidates management control. The current system allows far too much buck passing to go on, between the many contractors who bicker with each other and the civil servants who are often not qualified to hold the positions they are in (nepotism is rife at the Cape). The nature of a government system demands that the space program be split between contractors who are spread out across the country in many Congressional districts. By some estimates the Shuttle Program could be run at a tenth of its current cost were it done in the private sector. The only problem is who would want to do it in the private sector?

My first two summers while I was in college ('90 & '91) I interned with Thiokol (the people who blew up Challenger) in their engineering program. I was lucky enough to have a step-dad who worked for them (I graduated from the closest high school to the base, Merritt Island High) I spent time with both their booster assembly and disassembly teams. What I saw horrified me, you have no idea of the wastefulness and inefficiency at the Cape. This was four years post-Challenger, and still some of the same behavior that caused the Challenger incident to occur was still there. There was a clear disconnect in communication between all levels, from the technicians on the floor, to the engineers, to Thiokol's managers, and finally NASA managers. Too many layers of bureaucracy for effective decsion making. The system is a mess, its a human organization problem, not a technical problem, and I'm not sure it can ever be fixed in its current form.

Best, Ocsrazor

[Bruce Klein]

Too many layers of bureaucracy for effective decsion making. The system is a mess, its a human organization problem, not a technical problem,

I'd also like to note, that the reason the Apollo Moon Missions were such a success is that the people involved were immediate post WWII generation types. People who were willing and honored to make great sacrifices for country across a broad spectrum. National pride for your country was everything... You do not see that today because of a new fractured state. After the 60's, a new generation of self centered, non-nationalistic leaders took over from the older WWII's. While this new brand of individual was great for private sector development (example: Internet, computer revolution, startups etc.) it is not so great for a monolith such as NASA.. and in many areas of government which work best with a selfless working society. This trend may have slowed however with Sep11. But, I'd guess we'll see it continue in the future as we become more empowered with better information and less reliance on big government etc.

[ocsrazor]

Hi Gang,

In reference to my earlier discussion of my personal experience with NASA and its supervision of its contractors:

I just caught this article which sums up the problems pretty well. Here is one paragraph.

[quote]As the criticisms have been published in government reports, National Aeronautics and Space Administration managers have taken steps to correct the problems. But just three days before the Columbia disaster this month, congressional auditors again took issue with NASA's supervision. They found that the space agency "placed little emphasis on end results, product performance and cost control."

The whole article is at:
http://www.centredai...ews/5195579.htm


Best, Ocsrazor

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.time.com/...00.html?cnn=yes

NASA
Camerawoman Clark mugs for a self-portrait. The shirt-sleeve crew was suited up for re-entry
TIME S C I E N C E
Those Last Few Seconds
Did Columbia's crew see trouble coming, or was the end mercifully fast? Answers are starting to emerge
By JEFFREY KLUGER

Sunday, Mar. 16, 2003
Death comes quickly in space, unless it comes very slowly. The crew of the shuttle Challenger is thought — or hoped — to have suffered little. Crew members of Apollo 13, had they not made it home, would have needed days to breathe up all their air and suffocate. Ever since the crack-up of the shuttle Columbia last month, NASA has wanted to know how the astronauts on that doomed ship met their end — believing that the precise sequence of events on the crew decks would reveal a lot about the precise sequence of breakdowns throughout the ship.

Slowly, investigators are piecing together the answers. Space-agency technicians have been scrutinizing the final, fragmentary transmissions that came from the disintegrating Columbia, particularly a telltale, 2-sec. scrap of data deciphered for the first time only last week. Analysts are also paying closer attention to the 13-min. videotape, recovered partly intact from the wreckage, that the crew made during re-entry. Perhaps most important, some former astronauts have been willing to speculate — cautiously — on what might have been taking place inside Columbia in the critical minutes after the video went black and before the ship was destroyed. The sketchy picture that all this paints is of a professional team of astronauts doing everything they could to fly their vehicle, even as events overtook them.

The videotape, which runs from 8:35 to 8:48 a.m. E.T.--ending about 11 min. before the ship was destroyed — shows the astronauts just where they ought to have been that late in the mission, with commander Rick Husband, pilot William McCool and crew members Laurel Clark and Kalpana Chawla strapped into their seats on the main flight deck. Crewmates Ilan Ramon, David Brown and Michael Anderson were out of view, similarly belted into place on the middeck below. When the tape begins, Chawla and Clark are finishing their suiting up, while Husband and McCool are busy flying the ship.

"Oh, shoot!" Husband says, as he accidentally hits a control that briefly switches the spacecraft from autopilot to manual. "We bumped the stick earlier."

"Not a problem, Rick," Mission Control answers. "Yeah, but ..." Husband grumbles, sounding displeased that the harmless mistake happened at all.

Outside the windows, glowing plasma is flickering like lightning. "Is that [maneuvering] jets firing in the back?" Chawla asks. McCool replies, "That might be some plasma. The jets are not firing now."

The crew members spend the next few minutes enjoying the light show while tending to their suits and instruments and feeling for the return of the first ghost of gravity. When the ship is pulling only one-hundredth of a G, McCool is heard commenting that when he drops a card, it falls, a sure sign that Columbia is crossing the line from extraterrestrial to terrestrial.

Shortly afterward, the video record ends, but things probably remained routine until 3 min. later--8 min. before the accident — when NASA got its first indication of what it dryly calls off-nominal aero increments. Translation: the shuttle was growing unstable because of the loss of insulating tiles, and the computer-controlled flaps were attempting to compensate. Inside the ship this would not have caused concern.

"They probably noticed that the aero surfaces were being trimmed," says former astronaut Norman Thagard, a veteran of five shuttle flights and a tour of duty aboard the Russian space station Mir. "They might have commented that the vehicle was taking some sort of action, but it was still within the ability of the system to stay flying."

Just a few seconds later, however, when Columbia was 300 miles west of California, temperature sensors in the brake lines began to flutter — an anomaly, but a minor one. One minute 27 sec. after that, the first confirmed piece of debris broke away from the shuttle. While this was apparent to observers on the ground, it was not visible to the crew inside the disintegrating ship. "The wing is well behind you," says Thagard.

Less than 2 min. before the end, the problems began to cascade: the instrument panel blinking with a tire-pressure alert, a thruster-leak signal, a roll warning and more. The crew — at least the four astronauts on the flight deck — would have known something was up. "They are seeing multiple failures on top of one another," says former astronaut Tom Henricks, who piloted two shuttle missions and commanded two others. "But they are still thinking they can handle things like they do in the simulator."

Henricks and Thagard agree that whatever the commander and the pilot were doing to right the ship, the rest of the crew probably stayed quiet and let them do it. The astronauts on the flight deck were wired for sound, so anything they said was picked up by their microphones. The three on the middeck had mikes too, but if they wanted to be heard, they had to punch into the ship's intercom. All of them would have kept the chatter to a minimum. "If you're not flying the ship, you keep your mouth shut," says Thagard.

Less than a minute before the breakup, the last voice exchange took place between the ground and the ship. "There were probably a few folks in Mission Control who had a strong suspicion something catastrophic would happen," Henricks says. Houston radioed up a final, much less apocalyptic message about tire pressure, and Husband responded, "Roger, uh ..."

For 5 sec. after that, only computer data streamed down, and then all contact was lost. Finally, 25 sec. later, the ship crackled back online for just 2 sec., but the data packed into that brief burst told a chilling tale. According to the readings, the ship was in a flat, counterclockwise spin, moving at 20° per second, meaning it would complete a full rotation in 18 sec. Actually, Columbia was probably twirling faster than that, but 20° per second is as much as its systems could record, given that that's more than the ship could take. The data also suggest that Husband switched the spacecraft from autopilot to manual, evidently fighting to stabilize his spacecraft. There was no "Oh, shoot" this time.

"Motion like that is almost instantaneous," says Thagard. "You'd try to take manual control, but there may have been no time to do more than mutter an expletive. Once it's got that far, you've probably lost it."

Henricks, however, is not so sure things happened that quickly. "For 15 or 20 seconds Husband would probably have been struggling to regain control of the orbiter," he says. "It would have been hair-raising because he knew survival wasn't likely."

It's Thagard's quicker scenario that most people hope — and increasingly believe — is the right one. The frantic, final howl from Columbia's computers ended 4.826 sec. after 9 a.m. E.T., and NASA does place the disintegration of the vehicle within the next 20 sec. The official timeline, however, is in its 14th revision, and it will probably change again, perhaps eliminating the 20-sec. death spiral. If the end indeed came so fast, it would be one small mercy in a day otherwise devoid of it.

— With reporting by Deborah Fowler/Houston

[Lazarus Long]

NASA Missed Trouble Signs, Expert Tells Columbia Board
18 minutes ago
By Jim Banke
Senior Producer, Cape Canaveral Bureau, SPACE.com

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- A retired Air Force general on Tuesday told the independent panel investigating the Columbia tragedy that NASA ignored obvious warnings its space shuttles weren't flying as designed when insulating foam kept falling from external tanks, a factor that likely contributed to the Feb. 1 loss of seven astronauts.

However, Lt. Gen Aloysius Casey, a former director of the Space Division of Air Force Systems Command, said that NASA needs to begin flying again as quickly as possible to keep morale up and critical worker skills honed, two factors that would actually improve shuttle program safety.

Speaking at the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's (CAIB) third public hearing, held here near the Kennedy Space Center, Casey admitted he wasn't an expert on what exactly happened to NASA’s 113th shuttle mission and why, but there are some conclusions already apparent, he said.

Casey is a retired three-star general with decades of experience in missiles and rocket systems.

"High speed impacts of material on the shuttle wings are beyond the qualification envelope of the orbiter. The known debris from the tank hitting the left wing is incontrovertible," Casey said in reference to the pieces of insulating foam that cameras captured falling from Columbia's external tank about 81 seconds after the Jan. 16 launch.

Although NASA managers concluded Columbia and its crew were in no danger from the debris striking the wing, during re-entry the left wing's heat shield was breached, most likely along the leading edge where the debris is believed to have hit. This allowed hot gases inside the wing, which eventually caused a structural failure and the loss of vehicle and crew.

"Regardless of the specific sequence and the details of the failure events, it seems to me that the remedy is to preclude debris from impacting critical systems during ascent or anytime they have to operate. I believe this was doubtless an original design requirement. However, I think this is a design requirement that was not achieved, demonstrably not achieved," Casey said.

Casey explained that to understand the margins of a particular system it must be tested under conditions more extreme than it would see during a flight. Only then would that system be considered qualified to fly.

Moreover, the space agency needs to do a better job in quantifying the safety margins for all of the shuttle's various systems and be more sensitive to clues the hardware may be offering when things don't work as designed, he said.

NASA must especially avoid the potential trap in believing a particular system that hasn't been working exactly as designed is safe just because it has done so for several flights in a row, Casey said -- a point that board chairman Harold Gehman was quick to agree with during the hearing.

"Your comments are very helpful because in some of the readings we've done as part of our review of some of these programs, that subject of 'successful flights don't re-establish margins' has come back again and again," Gehman said.

Specifically, foam shedding from external tanks has been seen on numerous shuttle flights before Columbia’s final mission.

On four occasions officials identified large chunks falling from a ramp of insulating material that is hand-sculpted on the external tank near the two forward struts --known as the bipod -- that attach the orange tank to the spaceplane's black belly.

Considered individually, none of those previous missions presented a safety of flight concern and all were dispositioned during NASA's standard safety review process that ultimately leads to the Flight Readiness Review (FRR), a meeting of senior managers in which the shuttle is cleared for launch.

"There's no question that NASA looks at the shuttle program through a microscope. Several people have indicated they also need to stand back and look at it through a telescope," Gehman said after the hearing.

During the hearing, KSC director Roy Bridges appeared as the opening speaker and noted he never considered the shedding foam and their effect on the shuttle's thousands of heat protection tiles a safety issue.

"To be honest I did not think that the bipod foam coming off had caused any significant damage in the program to date. I personally looked at every shuttle that's come back during my tenure here and I've seen no significant damage from any of the foam coming off," Bridges said. "It's certainly been a maintenance concern. It's a lot of work to go out and repair all of those things."

Bridges said if there was any evidence to suspect there was a serious issue with the foam he would have said something.

"Had I been aware of that, I certainly would have put my hand up at the FRR that we would stop flying. I think this is certainly a surprise to all of us," Bridges said.

Gehman later commented on that way of thinking as he discussed with Casey NASA's decision-making philosophy, a philosophy the Rogers Commission investigating the 1986 Challenger disaster labeled "flawed" and cited as a contributing factor.

"We should change the operative question on the table here. The present question is that you've got to prove to me that something is unsafe before I'll change it," Gehman said.

Instead, "we should require the system to prove it is safe, particularly if we have something that appears to be exhibiting anomalies. The impetus should be to prove it's safe. The burden shouldn't be on me to prove it's not safe. The burden should be on the system to prove it is safe," Gehman said.

After suggesting that NASA consider using less insulation foam on the tank, Casey also recommended:

1. Shuttles be launched only on missions in which unmanned rockets couldn't be used.

2. Future crew size be kept to a minimum.

3. Waivers and deviations in processing hardware should be avoided as much as possible.

Acknowledging those ideas, after the hearing Gehman told reporters he didn't expect to make such specific operational recommendations in the final report, which is still weeks -- if not months -- away.

"What we'll do is attempt to put in our own words a description of what we have found to be the real risks, the real costs, the real benefits and the fixes you need to increase the margin," Gehman said. "I do wish we had the answer by now and that we were writing the final report."

A fourth public hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. EST (1400 GMT) Wednesday at the Radisson Resort at Port Canaveral here on Florida’s Space Coast. NASA TV is scheduled to broadcast the event.

http://story.news.ya...umbia_board&e=4

Edited by Lazarus Long, 26 March 2003 - 04:31 PM.

[Omnido]

[huh]
So indeed Nasa is taking a stand that their job is not to prove something is safe, but to let what is in question prove that it isnt safe?
Theres their flaw right there!

They know full well the expense cost of constantly subjecting every element and variable to the worst extremes just to prove that it is "Safe" in all conditions, and that is why they establish what they consider to be "Acceptable Margins of safety" within their designs.

It is my opinion, that they MUST endeavor to consider ALL possibilities within any circumstance of this sort, and demonstrate that their designs can prove themselves more than safe enough for the operation(s) and condition(s) with which they function.

Once again, a restriction that is more than likely due to insufficient funding and manpower. [angry]

[Lazarus Long]

http://story.news.ya...pace_shuttle_dc

Astronaut Sally Ride Hears 'Echo' in Shuttle Errors
Tue Apr 8, 6:18 PM ET By Broward Liston

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - Sally Ride, who gained fame as the first American woman in space, said on Tuesday that she finds an "echo" of the mistakes that led to the 1986 Challenger accident in decisions that may have contributed to February's fatal crash of shuttle Columbia.

Ride was a member of the presidential task force known as the Rogers Commission that determined the cause of the Challenger accident, and in early March she joined the independent board investigating Columbia's demise.

"I think I'm hearing an echo here," Ride, in Houston for public hearings by the Columbia board, told reporters by teleconference. She said that before the Challenger accident, NASA (news - web sites) grew comfortable with problems related to the O-rings that connect the shuttle's twin solid-fuel rockets with its external fuel tank.

In Columbia's case, she said, NASA may have gotten too used to foam breaking off the fuel tanks and striking the shuttle's thermal protection system, the tiles and hardened carbon panels that protect it from the heat of re-entry.

"During the Rogers Commission, one of the things that came out early on was that the O-rings were not a problem for the first time on this (Challenger's final) flight. They'd been a problem on not just one, not just two, not just three, but several shuttle flights before the Challenger accident," said Ride, who left NASA after the Challenger accident and is now on the faculty of the University of California at San Diego.

She said that an attitude developed in the space agency that "you survived it the first time, so suddenly it becomes more normal. It happens enough and now it's a normal occurrence. I think we're trying to understand whether that same thinking crept in with the foam off the tank."

Columbia broke up during its re-entry into the atmosphere on Feb. 1, killing all seven astronauts aboard.

A 2-pound piece of foam had broken off the fuel tank 81 seconds after launch and struck Columbia's left wing. Pieces of that wing began to fly off as the orbiter passed over the Pacific Ocean on its way to a landing in Florida.

By the time Columbia was over central Texas it had lost its aerodynamic stability and was spinning out of control. It broke apart while traveling more than 20 times the speed of sound and created a 250-mile long debris field that stretched all the way to Louisiana.

Ride and retired Adm. Harold Gehman, the board's chairman, said a computer analysis of the impact used by NASA during the flight to predict the extent of the damage was ineffective.

The program, called Crater because it predicted the size of gouges in thermal protection tiles, was not designed for in-flight analysis and relied on tests that had used tiny pieces of foam less than an inch wide, while the foam that hit Columbia was more than 20 inches long.

It also did not predict damage to the more fragile, U-shaped panels that protect the leading edge of each wing. That is where most investigators now think the foam struck.

Ride said that it appeared most of the engineers studying the impact while Columbia was still in orbit accepted the Crater analysis at face value, possibly because they were unaware of its shortcomings.

As a result, NASA never requested long-range photos from spy satellites and ground-based telescopes that could have revealed the extent of the damage. And without knowing how badly Columbia was damaged, NASA never attempted anything that might have given the seven astronauts a greater chance of surviving.

****************************************************

While I have never read anything that confirms my worst suspocion conclusively the evidence mounts that they neglected to inform the Commander of the Mission of the level of suspicion and that they never really brought the crew into the decision making process. I think that the system is broken if Ground Control wants to micro manage operations to the point they keep "crewmen out of the loop".

LL/kxs

[Lazarus Long]

http://story.news.ya...e_investigation

NASA Found Wing Problem on Discovery
Mon Apr 14,10:17 AM ET U.S. National - AP
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Almost two years before the Columbia disaster, NASA inspectors discovered a serious weakening of a shuttle's protective left-wing panel and ordered a fleetwide inspection out of fear the problem would turn up in other shuttles, internal space agency documents show.

Inspectors were ordered to feel for similar cracks on wing panels of other shuttles. They found none, but NASA now acknowledges its testing might have missed deterioration on shuttles like Columbia because of difficulties detecting such flaws without removing wing panels and cutting them apart.

"There is no technology right now to do effective, nondestructive testing," NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It's a conundrum, one we really have to get better at and have to really figure out."

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration knew that visual inspections of wing panels were inadequate. An engineering study a year before the fleet inspection concluded that underlying damage to wing panels "can extend significantly beyond" anything seen on the outside.

One of the study's authors, Ignacio Norman, later participated in intense debates within NASA during Columbia's mission about whether it might return safely.

Columbia was NASA's oldest shuttle when it disintegrated above the earth Feb. 1, killing the crew. Investigators have focused on its left wing and the type of protective panels cited in the earlier safety review.

Documents reviewed by the AP showed that when the shuttle Discovery returned from space after its March 2001 mission, inspectors were alarmed to discover a 2-inch tear caused by corrosion on a left wing heat-resistant panel. They called the flaw "serious." Inspectors had looked at the same panels three hours before liftoff and found no such damage.

The damage was among the most significant following space missions in recent years, because damage to a wing's leading edge is considerably more likely to doom a shuttle than anywhere else. NASA requires immediate repairs when damage to the protective panels exceeds four-hundredths of one inch, about the thickness of a dime.

At the time, inspectors said Discovery's safety was not jeopardized. They concluded the damage was caused by small amounts of oxygen slowly penetrating the U-shaped panel's surface and weakening its outer coating of silicon carbide, a brittle material. The coating protects the leading edge of a shuttle's wings from temperatures that can climb to nearly 3,000 degrees during re-entry.

The engineers feared similar corrosion damage to wing panels on other shuttles, especially older ones. They speculated this corrosion appeared on Discovery because it had just returned from its 29th flight, a record number at the time. Columbia was on its 28th mission when it was destroyed.

It was a dramatic illustration of recurring corrosion problem that has frustrated NASA for years. In recent weeks, it has increasingly captured the attention of the board investigating the Columbia accident.

Citing reports since 1992 of pin-size holes especially on older wing panels, investigators have openly speculated whether similar corrosion may have fatally weakened a panel along Columbia's left wing. That is where a 2-pound chunk of insulating foam off the fuel tank smashed against it 81 seconds after liftoff.

NASA has said it closely studied the corrosion problem from 1995 to 1997. It ordered more inspections, began recoating panels after every 16 flights and placed new restrictions on how many flights each panel could make. None of the panels aboard Columbia had exceeded those limits.

Damage to Discovery was so worrisome that NASA additionally ordered inspectors to begin feeling for cracks along wing panels before every shuttle mission. Months before Columbia's breakup, it also began testing a new technique, thermography, to scan for cracks inside panels — with mixed results so far.

Harold Gehman Jr., a retired Navy admiral heading the investigation, has indicated the board soon will recommend that NASA improve testing to find flaws on older shuttles.

Safety inspectors routinely swarm over returning shuttles, looking for cracked insulating tiles or other damage. "This is now and has always been very serious," Michael Kostelnik, NASA's deputy associate administrator for the shuttle, told the AP.

The report of Discovery's wing damage, along with other internal documents about the mysterious corrosion suggest NASA had previously recognized yet another existing design problem with its shuttles that may have contributed to the deaths of Columbia's seven astronauts.

Other agency documents released previously showed that before the shuttle mission preceding Columbia's, NASA flagged as a major concern a loss of insulating foam in the same area on fuel tanks where investigators believe debris broke away and smashed against Columbia's left wing.

There have been at least four flights since 1983 where foam broke off that part of shuttle fuel tanks, most recently on a 10-day mission by Atlantis in October 2002. But NASA concluded damage from such breakaway foam was not a safety threat even though it considers any debris striking the shuttle unacceptable.

Collectively, these two flaws — breakaway tank foam and weakened wing panels — figure into the leading theory among board members investigating Columbia's destruction. But NASA apparently never tied together its reports on these problems to anticipate such a disaster.

NASA Administrator O'Keefe acknowledged that NASA has done a poor job studying trends to identify safety risks over decades of flights, a failure he said "has come screaming home to me" since Columbia's breakup.

The investigating board believes wing panel corrosion probably has been caused by a zinc-based paint primer leaching onto shuttles from the nearby launch tower amid rainstorms — the subject of NASA's studies in the late 1990s.

NASA has suggested that rainwater reacting with the wing panels over many months produces sodium carbonate, which aggressively corrodes the protective silicon carbide layer above 900 degrees.

The agency in early 2001 found corrosive white carbonate residue on Columbia, Atlantis and Endeavour and noted the three shuttles were "all exposed to an excessive amount of rain." More recent testing has focused back on the primer as the likely suspect.

Inspectors studying Discovery's wing in 2001 were convinced the damage would not endanger the shuttle even if a patch they had applied fell off during the next fiery re-entry, which they deemed a "remote possibility." They repaired the wing panel, rather than replace it, because there were not enough spare parts, according to the damage report.

Their conclusion: Discovery would survive and any future damage "would be readily apparent." Discovery safely completed its subsequent flight in August 2001, its last flight before Columbia was destroyed.

___

On the Net:

Columbia investigation board: www.caib.us

Edited by Lazarus Long, 14 April 2003 - 07:46 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

I am posting this not to say I told you so from the perspective that I think denial and bureaucratic mishandling destroyed the shuttle, but rather to address a very critical issue of Command, as it relates to not only this instance, but of the very principle of individual freedom.

It has been my suspicion that from the very beginning the crew was never adequately informed of the situation and in fact nothing in the subsequent investigation has done anything to alleviate me of that suspicion. Actually quite the opposite, an attempt to cover up this probability has occurred and to "deny that any possible solution made such an action unnecessary".

It is perhaps the most sinister aspect of this investigation that there was (and still is) a desire to keep the crew innocent of the possible threat that may have shifted blame to where none wish to acknowledge it.

Why?

Clearly my very first point about being a pilot in Command was relevant. An EVA probably would have indicated the extent of the threat and even if no fix was possible (a frankly unknown presumption that can only be tested thousands of times in the future through simulations, but never truly determined) the crew could have at the very least been brought into the struggle to defend their own lives.

They should have been given this option but it is the common mindset today to reduce the importance of individual decision making and participation in favor of a "planned activity" that determines Command and Control" of the mission to be the responsibility of the larger group rather than the elements in the field that must make the pragmatic decisions as to their course of action.

From the moment of ignition Command for the Mission belongs onboard the ship and not on the ground. The REAL Mission Commander belongs in the cockpit not behind the view screen and desk(top).

Commander Husband was apparantly "spun the facts” and not given the full Command option of an on-site evaluation of the threat and this is inexcusable AND discernable from a full examination of Telemetry for communication over the course of the mission.

"What if?" is the speculation of fantasy and Sci-Fi, but all I can ascertain is that they were never really given a chance, not just by the events aboard the ship, but by a Top/Down MINDSET that devalues individual decision making in favor of the collective consensus.

I will forever now see them as Human Sacrifices to the larger group for this reason; ever more noble in purpose and tragic as an example of the scope human social foible.

LL/kxs

Columbia Accident Board Reveals a 'Working Hypothesis'
Wed May 7, 9:52 AM ET Science - Space.com
The Webtext

By Jim Banke
Senior Producer,
Cape Canaveral Bureau, SPACE.com

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- The pieces are face up on the table and the edge is defined, but the puzzle is far from being solved.

That's the situation in which the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) finds itself as the panel's chairman on Tuesday laid out a "working hypothesis" as to what caused the Feb. 1 loss of the shuttle and its seven-member crew.

"We still have our antennae out, our senses sharpened, for any indication whatsoever that we may have it wrong or that we have overlooked something," said CAIB chairman Harold Gehman, who is a retired Navy admiral. "We reserve the right to change any part of it, anytime, without notice."

Though these details have been discussed before, this was the first time the CAIB officially pronounced them to be part of the reason why Columbia was lost.

"The board felt that we now know enough, and we understand enough, that it's time that we change the board's official policy -- which was we don't believe in 'scenarios of the day' or the most popular scenario -- that everything was on the table, to the point now where we believe we should focus our efforts," Gehman said.

Without explaining the links between these events, or necessarily agreeing there is a link, Gehman said that the board has agreed to these facts about the Columbia tragedy:

1. During the Jan. 16 launch a piece of insulating foam broke free from the shuttle's external tank and struck the leading edge of Columbia's left wing.

2. During the second day of the mission Earth-based tracking systems recorded evidence of a small object floating near Columbia.

3. Radar followed the object for about two days until the object fell from orbit and burned up. Tests since then have determined that the object's radar signature matches two parts from the wing, but there is no conclusive proof the object came from the wing.

4. Columbia and its crew worked perfectly during the 16-day mission and there is no evidence that anything struck the orbiter in space, or that the crew or payload in anyway contributed to the tragedy.

5. When Columbia began its re-entry on Feb. 1, it did so with pre-existing damage to the leading edge of its left wing.

6. As the spaceplane began warming up from atmospheric friction, hot gases entered the left wing and began a series of events that led to the breakup of the vehicle over Texas.

After detailing these facts, Gehman again stressed that the CAIB is not yet willing to positively link all of this together into one complete explanation of what happened.

"We're careful not to say that the foam knocked a hole in the leading edge of the orbiter because we can't prove it," Gehman said. "That's not to say we don't believe that's what happened. Right now we're not willing to make that kind of statement."

"I would say that the board is certainly suspicious the foam had something to do with this, but we are very careful here not to make a statement we couldn't live with," he said.

With this "working hypothesis," the board's investigation will now focus on specific tests and studies that will help them write a final report, which is targeted to be complete this summer.

One of the most visible tests still to come will take place in San Antonio, Texas at the Southwest Research Institute. It's there that researchers will fire samples of foam at a full-scale recreation of shuttle wing components to determine what kind of damage might occur.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 12 May 2003 - 02:48 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

So besides two methods of real time onsite inspection that were negligently discarded in favor of an attitude of complacent bureaucratic willful ignorance that is exemplary of the self indulgent bliss so prevalent these days, there appears to be at least two working hypotheses for how to have mounted a rescue. Here is one.

There is however one more aspect of this article's proposal that needs to be better understood by all of us regardless of Nationality but most definitely by those of us in America that sent these explorers forth; that is the Obligation we the beneficiaries, who sit safe and sound upon the ground, owe those that go beyond and risk their lives to further our spirit for knowledge and the limits that confine our species.

This is no idle contract and in this sense is better understood as the warrior's bond, which is the rule. This is a war against ignorance.

It is by this struggle of a few that we shall all move forward and define what is commonly called "progress." All who go to the true frontier need to know that some of us will follow through the very gates of Hell, to the very abyss of the apocalypse to challenge fate and retrieve through the dignity of a total effort and commitment to accompany their heroism, discipline, devotion, and willing risk of sacrifice, to protect them and do any and everything humanly possible to create what it takes to bring them home.

If nothing else then it will be demonstrated by the concordant courage of those willing to stand alongside those that face these dangers who might otherwise believe themselves alone. Better to take heart from one another and lift our spirits, raise our eyes to look into those of the beast and laugh at death then cower as timid self indulgent fools.

How is it three hundred Spartan Hoplites stood against an army of tens of thousands at Thermopolis? And why?

How was it possible for one lone individual to stand up against a phalanx of tanks in Tieniem Square?

Where does such courage come from? Is it ordered or found?

Is it expected or demonstrated by example?

When any of us see it we know immediately what it is and why it is so precious for defining the human spirit. Those intrepid explorers that lead the peaceful exploration of space deserve recognition as truly courageous such as very few who have ever lived; for they are willing to sacrifice themselves not for battle glory in the passions of blood and struggle for power or to alleviate obvious threat but for the quiet and profound quest for victory of knowledge and reason over ignorance and bigotry, they raise all of us from the mud into the sublime.

Never should we let these vanguards believe themselves abandoned for convenience or force them to be blindfolded in the face of the knowing their true purpose and risk when looking into this abyss that is so ready to consume any of us that attempts to stretch the limits of human awareness. Never again let ignorance be acceptable.

All those that seek to pioneer our New Age should always know that the rest of us will strive to reach them no matter what the obstacles and even failing that, there are those of us that are prepared to make an equal sacrifice, to stand with them in their struggle AGAINST being sacrificed.

Our commitment to these true heroes of humanity is to diligently refuse to allow our comrades to die in vain, or through the contemptuous vanity of bureaucratic complacency and negligence. But also the pact demands that once a sacrifice is made all and more that we can learn from the tragic consequence is our solemn duty to achieve of their sacrifice.


LL/kxs

http://story.news.ya...e_investigation
Shuttle Rescue Might Have Been Possible
Fri May 23, 9:31 PM ET U.S. National - AP
By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - NASA (news - web sites) could have launched another shuttle to rescue the Columbia astronauts if it had realized the severity of the wing damage early on and decided it was worth the extreme risk to the second ship and crew, the chief accident investigator said Friday.

Retired Navy Adm. Harold Gehman Jr., chairman of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, said that the question was put to NASA earlier this month and that the space agency's preliminary findings indicate that such a rescue would have been technically feasible.

But he added: "I've got no idea if it would have been successful or not."

Gehman stressed that a rushed rescue mission by shuttle Atlantis and four of NASA's best and most seasoned astronauts would have been "very, very risky — but not impossible."

He said astronauts would have been "standing out in the hallways to volunteer."

In the days after the Feb. 1 tragedy, NASA managers insisted nothing could have been done to fix Columbia's wing and save its seven astronauts.

Earlier this week, however, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said he would have strongly considered sending Atlantis to the astronauts' rescue, even if it meant losing another shuttle and crew.

The investigation board asked NASA at the beginning of May to determine what emergency steps could have been taken if the space agency had known that a flying chunk of foam insulation had created a fatal breach in the ship's left wing during liftoff. NASA briefed the board on its findings Thursday.

Gehman acknowledged it would have been chancy to launch a shuttle on a rescue mission without first fixing the problem of foam breaking off.
But he pointed out that in the military, "we frequently launch 120 people to go save one."

"If you've got a pilot down behind enemy lines, we do everything and anything possible to go get that person," he said in a telephone conference with reporters. "It's kind of a contract we have with the people who go into harm's way.

"NASA and the nation have that same contract with astronauts, and it is my opinion, and from my personal background, that if there had been any erring, we would have erred on the side of taking the chance and going after them."

With drastic conservation measures, Columbia's 16-day flight could have been stretched to 30 days to give NASA time to mount the rescue mission, Gehman said.

Because Atlantis was about to be moved to the launch pad for a March 1 launch, it could have been ready to fly as early as Feb. 11 or 12, three or four days before Columbia's air purifiers would have run out, Gehman said.

Atlantis could have arrived at Columbia within 24 hours and flown in formation, 50 to 90 feet apart, with the open payload bays facing one another. Atlantis' astronauts then would have escorted their colleagues from Columbia in a series of four spacewalks, bringing them over mostly two at a time, Gehman said. Extra spacesuits would have been taken up by Atlantis.

As for Columbia, the abandoned ship ultimately would have been guided by remote control into the ocean.

The only other option would have been to try to repair the damaged wing in a spacewalk by Columbia's astronauts, perhaps by stuffing the hole with a bag of water, which would have frozen, and then covering it with Teflon tape, and hope for the best, Gehman said. But he said NASA has yet to determine if such a patch would have held during the fiery re-entry.

"It kind of comes under the category of, at least we would have done something," he said.

During the shuttle's re-entry, scorching gases entered the hole in the wing and caused the shuttle to break apart over Texas. While Columbia was still in orbit, NASA engineers concluded that the foam had not caused any serious damage. In fact, the space agency decided not to request any special military photography of the shuttle in orbit to examine the potential damage.

The possibility that a rescue mission could have been mounted changes some of the decision-making done back then "from being kind of a bureaucratic, administrative fumbling-bumbling to a much more serious life-and-death kind of a decision process," Gehman said.

"Now those kinds of benign administrative decisions which were taken now look more ominous, because now it looks like maybe there was something you could do," he said.

___

On the Net:

Columbia Accident Investigation Board: www.caib.us

Edited by Lazarus Long, 24 May 2003 - 01:08 PM.