Forums | MacLife

Cyberpawz · 2003-02-07 5:27 pm

Give me an F-ng break...

I wish I could find this report, if someone can please post it.

There was just told on the radio, that a report was just published that has a opening question...

Was the shuttle destroyed due to being Politically correct?

The foam that hit the shuttle, was more "environmentally friendly" but was known to have problems with extensive heat.

The Space shuttle was fitted with this foam after it's last major retrofit.

The original foam worked perfectly, but because of politics, and being "environmentally friendly" that miscalculation might of killed seven Astronaughts.

Thank god for Political correctness, and enviro nuts.

Cyberpawz

Pro_ · 2003-02-07 5:39 pm

no, I believe that that was some type of adhesive thwat they used, they tested it in flight, and it degraded so they went back to the origional stuff, unless this is a separate issue(this was several years ago when I heard this, so it may likely be a different issue.) btw I never heard that NASA decided on the cause of the accident yet

MjolnirMarkV · 2003-02-07 5:43 pm

this is going to stir things up... eek

Mars_Attacks · 2003-02-07 5:44 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html

Slade · 2003-02-07 5:49 pm

Wow. That is a piece of crap article by Fox News. Really.

"We may never know precisely what happened to Columbia, but one thing should be clear

Pro_ · 2003-02-07 6:07 pm

this I wont believe until it comes directly from NASA, or at least a more reliable news source. I have absolutely no respect for Fox news.

Slade · 2003-02-07 6:12 pm

this I wont believe until it comes directly from NASA, of at least a more reliable news source. I have absolutely no respect for Fox news.

Word.

Tallgeese · 2003-02-07 7:15 pm

Well let's see... they knew that the foam had detached and investigated it from the shuttle, and found it to be no threat. Also, they have previously given a 1:400 chance that the orbiter will come into contact with a seriously dangerous piece of space junk that is impossible to detect, track or avoid. Sure, this certainly sounds like some nonsense theory to cover their asses thanks for the expos

Tallgeese · 2003-02-07 7:30 pm

Oh, and if you didn't notice, that Fox article also says that NASA's theory is as ridiculous as thinking that there was a lone gunman who killed Kennedy. Fox: Your Home for Crazy News and Conspiracy Theory

Steyr AUG · 2003-02-08 11:20 am

The fox story is an editorial, not a news story.

Pro_ · 2003-02-08 11:36 am

The fox story is an editorial, not a news story.

ok good, but fox shouldnt publish this stuff(nor a radio station) as fact until NASA has completed it's investigation.

As far as I am concerned about NASA investigating itsself, NASA is the ONLY organization with the experience and the expertise to methodically investigate, and find out what really happened, WITHOUT USING A SIMPLE LITTLE THING THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED IT JUST TO GET THE MEDIA OFF OF IT'S BACK. If many of the people had listened to the first press conference we would not assume that the tiles were severely damaged by the foam and caused the breakup. They said MULTIPLE times in the conference that the foam is one little place where they are going to BACK UP and see if they missed something there, NASA is going to go over every detail of the flight, and until they finish, we can make NO assumptions about the cause of the breakup, jeez.

Mars_Attacks · 2003-02-08 12:05 pm

Is this a more acceptable link?

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030207avweek

Galahad · 2003-02-08 12:08 pm

I hate Fox News. They're more interested in sensationalizing anything than telling actual fact. I can't even comprehend how they're the number one news source; that's pretty freaking pathetic.

Cyberpawz · 2003-02-08 12:51 pm

The article I was talking about wasn't from fox anyway...it was from sources that are leading the investigation...

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.

Cyberpawz

matt · 2003-02-08 2:02 pm

The fox story is an editorial, not a news story.

I thought every story from Fox News was an editorial.

Mustapha Mond · 2003-02-08 3:06 pm

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.

Cyberpawz

roll

I defy you to find any proof of environmentalists demanding that NASA sacrifice the safety of the astronauts in exchange for a more environmentally friendly foam.

Even the Fox editorial points out that NASA did not have to change the foam if they didn't want to, and there is no evidence that the decision to switch to the new foam was the result of NASA giving in to pressure from environmentalists. By all appearances, NASA felt that the new foam was acceptable. More than likely, they believed that they could run a program that was both environmentally friendly and that was still safe for the astronauts.

Being safe and being environmentally friendly are not mutually exclusive goals, and the decision to use the new foam should not be interpreted in those terms. I doubt if you'll ever find an environmentalist who'll agree that those are the conditions that they want NASA to operate under.

Mustapha Mond · 2003-02-08 3:21 pm

Is this a more acceptable link?

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts107/030207avweek

The difference between the article here and the editorial at Fox -- the thing that it seems people in this thread are complaining about -- is that the Fox piece essentially tries to accuse NASA of covering up what really happened, while this other article simply adds evidence to the likelihood that damage to the left wing caused the accident.

Though the Fox editorial would like us to believe otherwise, NASA is still very much investigating whether or not that foam was the cause of the problem:

"Investigators are considering every possible scenario, from the impact of a large chunk of hard insulating foam that hit the shuttle seconds after liftoff Jan. 16, to a deadly bull-eye's strike by a piece of space junk, to a lightning-like electrical phenomenon in the upper atmosphere.

"The seemingly innocuous piece of foam - once NASA's focus, then all but discarded - is back at the heart of the mystery." Link

My own memory of events is that around Feb 4th or 5th NASA gave the impression that the foam was out of the picture, but quickly corrected themselves between the 5th and the 6th. I'm virtually positive that I remember hearing about the foam's coming and going (as it were) before yesterday (the 7th) when that editorial was posted.

Cyberpawz · 2003-02-08 3:43 pm

I defy you to find any proof of environmentalists demanding that NASA sacrifice the safety of the astronauts in exchange for a more environmentally friendly foam.

Even the Fox editorial points out that NASA did not have to change the foam if they didn't want to, and there is no evidence that the decision to switch to the new foam was the result of NASA giving in to pressure from environmentalists. By all appearances, NASA felt that the new foam was acceptable. More than likely, they believed that they could run a program that was both environmentally friendly and that was still safe for the astronauts.

Being safe and being environmentally friendly are not mutually exclusive goals, and the decision to use the new foam should not be interpreted in those terms. I doubt if you'll ever find an environmentalist who'll agree that those are the conditions that they want NASA to operate under.

Then why change the foam at all, something was said, done, push, pulled, prodded, or just blown to hell for this to happen.

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.

In the case of the Space Shuttle, the life of the Astronauts are more important than anything else...

The Foam may not of been "environmentally friendly" but it did it's job, and I'm sure the rockets that boosted the shuttle to space was more of a hazard to the environment than any piece of foam...

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

Only reason I can think of is the enviro nuts got their fingers into the pudding, and decided to force or "suggest" this on NASA, for there is no reason to risk the safety of Astronauts period.

Cyberpawz

Mustapha Mond · 2003-02-08 4:09 pm

The Fox editorial, though I question its selective use of facts, clearly states that NASA was given an exemption by the EPA to not change the foam if they didn't want to.

Right now, we can only guess at their 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.

Your claim that "eviro nuts" were intentionally putting the astronauts at risk is completely unsubstantiated. You're implying that they knew the foam was unsafe, and that NASA knew the foam was unsafe, and that these mysterious "eviro nuts" somehow conjured the power to influence NASA into eschewing astronaut safety and that NASA made nary a peep about it and they went on launching shuttles over and over again for the last 6 years, knowing the whole time that the astronauts were in increased danger. It doesn't hold up.

Go on believing that without any proof if you want to, but all you're really doing is swallowing your own misconceptions about "enviro nuts," i.e.: your idea that people who believe in working to protect the environment are willing to do so at the expense of human life.

Mustapha Mond · 2003-02-08 4:18 pm

One other quick thing: The "enviro nuts" were not able to stop NASA from launching the Cassini space probe in 1997. Environmentalists were worried that Cassini had the potential to become a "dirty nuke" if it failed to "ricochet" properly off the Earth's atmosphere during a flyby.

("Protestors feared the cancer-causing plutonium would be released during a launch accident, or that it may be released if there is an accident in 1999 when the craft passes close by the during a maneuver called a flyby." Link)

NASA makes its own decisions for its own reasons.

hillbilly · 2003-02-11 7:46 am

The fox story is an editorial, not a news story.
I thought every story from Fox News was an editorial.

Same could be said about ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, ....

Cyberpawz · 2003-02-11 10:12 am

One other quick thing: The "enviro nuts" were not able to stop NASA from launching the Cassini space probe in 1997. Environmentalists were worried that Cassini had the potential to become a "dirty nuke" if it failed to "ricochet" properly off the Earth's atmosphere during a flyby.

("Protestors feared the cancer-causing plutonium would be released during a launch accident, or that it may be released if there is an accident in 1999 when the craft passes close by the during a maneuver called a flyby." Link)

NASA makes its own decisions for its own reasons.

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

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.

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.

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?"

Cyberpawz

bratboy · 2003-02-11 10:17 am

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.

bratboy · 2003-02-11 10:20 am

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

Does a NASA spokesperson post here? confused

Are you asserting that NASA was forced to use foam that was "less safe?"

Cyberpawz · 2003-02-11 10:32 am

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

Does a NASA spokesperson post here?

Are you asserting that NASA was forced to use foam that was "less safe?"

I hate to say it, but yes.

I would expect that the people who designed the shuttle, and do the upgrades for it would put the safety of the people inside it before anything else. No matter how new it is, or how neat it looks, if it can't help them, or be functional, then it shouldn't be put into the shuttle.

This new foam was substandard, and didn't live up to it's standards, in doing so, this possibly killed 7 astronauts. So why was it used? This foam was known to have issues at high temperatures, yet it was still used... why?

These questions should be answered, and I hate to say it, heads have to roll... for someone made a very, very, expensive, and stupid mistake. For it possibly forfeited 7 lives when none should of been lost.

Cyberpawz

Forums | MacLife

#1 2003-02-07 5:27 pm

Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#2 2003-02-07 5:39 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#3 2003-02-07 5:43 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#4 2003-02-07 5:44 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#5 2003-02-07 5:49 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#6 2003-02-07 6:07 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#7 2003-02-07 6:12 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#8 2003-02-07 7:15 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#9 2003-02-07 7:30 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#10 2003-02-08 11:20 am

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#11 2003-02-08 11:36 am

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#12 2003-02-08 12:05 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#13 2003-02-08 12:08 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#14 2003-02-08 12:51 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#15 2003-02-08 2:02 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#16 2003-02-08 3:06 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#17 2003-02-08 3:21 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#18 2003-02-08 3:43 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#19 2003-02-08 4:09 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#20 2003-02-08 4:18 pm

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#21 2003-02-11 7:46 am

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#22 2003-02-11 10:12 am

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#23 2003-02-11 10:17 am

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#24 2003-02-11 10:20 am

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

#25 2003-02-11 10:32 am

Re: Enviromentally Friendly Foam?

Board footer