Forums | MacLife

I seriously hope they find something else caused it... because if so, there is no one to blame but the enviro nuts that insisted on using a poorly design foam compared to what they were using before, which worked just fine.

Would you feel any more comfortable if the decision to use a environmentally safe foam came before shuttle safety (as that decision would have been made by NASA, not some environmental group)?  You wouldn't blame NASA in that respect?

While information swirls around NASA for having fired members of a safety advisory board who presented grave concerns for cutback in NASA safety funding, some people are still going to fight tooth-and-nail to politicize what happened.

Sad.

I would blame both parties, but the difference is that the proof would be there and it would be there to show that some groups of these enviro nuts do not have the safety of others in mind before actually suggesting something.

It would of also been interesting to see why NASA did what it did, was it because of the group, or was it because of political pressure that the group brought to NASA that was the downfall...

As I have said before, NASA normally thinks of the safety of the Astronauts first, if that didn't happen, something caused it to break down...and I want to know what that is.

Cyberpawz

I would blame both parties, but the difference is that the proof would be there and it would be there to show that some groups of these enviro nuts do not have the safety of others in mind before actually suggesting something.

"Enviro-nuts" would neither be educated enough in shuttle flight to make such decisions, or demand that they be made.  Blame would still fall upon those who were knowledgeable enough to make the decision...not upon any suggestion to use more eco-friendly materials.

enviro nuts

... are much better than anti-enviro-nuts. The worst being those nuts without a job. Unemployed-anti-enviro-nuts.

Sort of like how Russia wasn't able to stop Chernobyl issue...

What, exactly, is the connection here?

Seriously though, this is my issue, when going into space all considerations should be taken, just because the foam they use to protect themselves from burn-up, may not be "environmentally friendly" does not mean they have to replace it with a substandard product that is.

As, I've stated (twice now I think) they did not have to replace it. They chose to. (This is according to the Fox article posted earlier in the thread.)

BTW, the Cassini space probe, was Russian built, although launched by the US, Russia was paying a hefty fine to have that launched.

Don't bring in 3rd party things, the reason it wasn't stopped, was simply because NASA was paid to launch it.

It's not 3rd party at all (if by 3rd party you mean not relevant).

You've asserted that either NASA was forced to use the foam, or that they were pressured into using it.

The Fox piece shows that NASA was not forced to use the foam, and so that leaves only the possibility that NASA was pressured. The Cassini example shows that NASA is fully capable of ignoring the "pressures" of environmentalists. Therefore, it is unlikely that the decision to use the new foam was any different from the decision to launch Cassini -- even if hordes of protestors showed up demanding new foam, NASA could have ignored them just as easily as they ignored the Cassini protestors.

Unless, that is, you're trying to say that NASA is more likely to ignore protestors when NASA is being paid a lot of money to do something.

On another note, you never did answer my first question.

Then tell me why NASA went to an "environmentally friendly" foam, if they "didn't have to?"

Yes, I did answer the question:

Right now, we can only guess at [NASA's] reasons for going ahead with the change anyway, but, as I said before, being safe and being environmentally friendly are not mutually exclusive -- in other words, both can be accomplished. And NASA probably wanted to achieve both.

NASA is know for it's very keen minds, something must of been done or said (like political pressure) to make them change their minds.

Cyberpawz

What exactly was it that got NASA known for their keen minds?  Losing the Comet Lander?  Screwing up the Mars Rover?  The Mars Polar Lander?  Challenger?  Columbia?  Apollo 9?  Apollo 13?

NASA smurfs every other thing they do up.  They've wasted many, many billions of taxpayer dollars.  Keen minds my ass.

Ok, so you tell me how to land a lunar module without knowing the content of what the moon was made up of...

Didn't think you could...guess what, they did.

Cyberpawz

It does not matter who built Cassini. The relevant connection between it and the shuttle (foam) is that in both cases NASA had to make a decision about launching something that is potentially deadly: Cassini is deadly if it explodes on launch or if it does not execute its fly-by properly. Columbia is deadly to the astronauts if the foam fails.

We know for a fact that environmentalists (among many others) protested the launching of Cassini. In other words, they tried to pressure NASA into making a particular decision. In fact, I'm pretty sure they actually took NASA to court to try to stop the launch. (I think that shows pretty clearly how hard NASA will try to do it's own thing, regardless of what some protestors want.)

For the shuttle, you are assuming that environmentalists tried to pressure NASA into using a particular foam. We don't know this for sure (there is no real evidence to support it), but let's assume it's true.

Therefore: why would NASA give in to pressure on the foam, but not on Cassini? Remember, the relevant connection here is not who built what, but why certain decisions were made. Will they launch Cassini or won't they? Will they use the new foam or the old foam?

If you think the difference is in how the pressure was delivered, then you're going to have to explain that. We don't even know if there was any pressure from environmentalists at all -- this is something you've assumed.

As for the Fox piece, yes, it was an opinion, but, generally speaking, opinions are based on fact (if they're any good, that is). Here are two statements of fact from the editorial: "an exemption from the CFC phase-out could have been obtained" and "In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency exempted NASA from the CFC phase-out." If you're going to dismiss those statements, you need to prove they aren't correct. And perhaps they're not. But dismissing them only because you do not like Fox, or do not understand how opinion pieces are written, does not qualify.

And as for why NASA decided to use the foam: you'll have to ask them. I've presented my best guess about their reasoning, and I haven't seen anything that suggests that something is wrong with my guess. But you're idea about "enviro nuts" being responsible for this is something you've completely assumed and which hasn't been supported in any way. I've seen no proof that NASA was forced to use the foam, I've seen no proof that any environmental group was involved in any way trying to pressure NASA into using the foam, and I've seen no evidence to show that NASA would have given in to any environmental group that might have been involved.

Oh really, what did they do to stop it?  Picketed outside the parking lots?  As with my example, some enviro-nuts actually try to bring politics into this....this is an unknown factor, and has yet to be proven one way or another...

The term "bring politics into this" is really vague and doesn't explain anything....like your example above, about the dams.  That bill would have to have been VOTED on by legislators in your state.  Eco-activists didn't draft that bill, though they might have lobbied the legislature (as all interest groups do).

Trust me, in Mass, the way the government is set up around here, if you had over 100,000 signatures you could get spitting on the sidewalk reinforced again... actually that law still exists up here... you spit on the sidewalk, or street, the person is fined 5 sheep to give to the common.

Again, I think it's ridiculous that anyone would think that the person who suggested eco-safe foam should be punished.  For suggesting it?  NASA made that decision...and you said yourself they wouldn't have flown the shuttle if they thought the foam was dangerous.  How would you then go about punishing the person who suggested it or pushed for it?  I think you're laying a little too much on what you perceive as the "politics" involved.

Not suggesting, forcing NASA to change. That is the difference.

There is such a thing as An accomplice to murder after the fact...

Technically you probably could get them on that since they knew that the foam wasn't as sturdy as the old foam, and broke down in high temps...yet it was still suggested...and in the long term used.

There are some things in this world that should not be tampered with...when it works, keep it the way it is... if it's not broken don't fix it.

BTW, how did the old foam damage the environment?  The foam should never of had the chance to see the light of day if everything went right...and when it didn't...30 minutes of high temp shoved right at it?  How was that hurting the environment?

Cyberpawz