Did environmentalism bring down Columbia?

[miko2d]

Did environmentalism bring down Columbia?

More than six years ago, NASA investigated extensive thermal tile damage on the space shuttle Columbia as a result of the shedding of external tank insulation on launch – now a prime suspect in the Columbia's disastrous disintegration upon re-entry yesterday.

 The problems began when the space agency switched to materials and parts that were considered more "environmentally friendly," according to a NASA report obtained by WorldNetDaily.

...

In 1997, during the 87th space shuttle mission, similar tile damage was done during launch when the external tank foam crashed into them during the stress of takeoff.

...

The alarming report continued: "The pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations, and the number, size and severity of hits were abnormal. Three hundred and eight hits were counted during the inspection, one-hundred and thirty two (132) were greater than one inch. Some of the hits measured fifteen (15) inches long with depths measuring up to one and one-half (1 1/2) inches. Considering that the depth of the tile is two (2) inches, a 75% penetration depth had been reached. Over one hundred (100) tiles have been removed from the Columbia because they were irreparable. The inspection revealed the damage, now the 'detective process' began."

NASA investigators seven years ago noted that the damage followed changes in the methods of "foaming" the external tank – changes mandated by concerns about being "environmentally friendly."

...

In a letter to the White House, Don Nelson, who served with NASA for 36 years until he retired in 1999, wrote to President George W. Bush warning that his "intervention" was necessary to "prevent another catastrophic space shuttle accident."

...

"I became concerned about safety issues in NASA after Challenger," he said. "I think what happened is that very slowly over the years NASA's culture of safety became eroded. But when I tried to raise my concerns with NASA's new administrator, I received two reprimands for not going through the proper channels, which discouraged other people from coming forward with their concerns. When it came to an argument between a middle-ranking engineer and the astronauts and administration, guess who won."

 Interesting.

 miko

[Hortlund]

I'd say the headline there is horribly missleading.

I dont know if you're fishing or not, but the headline might just as well be "did the plastics industry bring down Columbia" and it would be just as missleading and irrelevant.

[Frogm4n]

if you know anything about the foam they use you will know that is BS. thats like saying a piece of foam hit a 747 wing and caused it to fall off. you can throw a penny at that external tank and it will stick right in. If you hate the enviroment so much miko i hear mexico city is great, and hell everything is privatised there! it will be heaven your you!

[miko2d]

I did just post the original headline of the article but I would accept responcibility for it.

 If a new method was used for environmental considerations that jcompromised safety - than it's apt.

 Certainly if I learn that some plastic parts were used not becasue of technological/finansial considerations but for a political ones - like promote/subcidise domestic plastic industry, it would be fair to say if "plastics industry [special interests] bring down Columbia".

 Note that the article is a speculation, not direct accusation. It's too early to know if the separating foam even had a part in the crash.
 But the fact that environmental considerations overrode technical ones is worth looking into.

 miko

[Frogm4n]

my question is when are you gonna find a nice article to blame 9/11 on enviromentalist. "if we had more smog they wouldnt have seen those towers! damn those enviromentaist!"

[midnight Target]

I predict there will be another accident in the future.

[miko2d]

Frogm4n: if you know anything about the foam they use you will know that is BS. thats like saying a piece of foam hit a 747 wing and caused it to fall off.

 I quoted an article which in turn quotes a report by NASA engineer. Apparently a piece of foam - which may be infused/encrusted with ice - hitting a fragile tiles at mach 2-3 can and ceratinly did cause a lot of damage at elast one once - on STS-87 and STS-87.

"The tiles do a fantastic job of repelling heat, however they are very fragile and susceptible to impact damage."

 The wing would not fall off due to a hairline crack in the tile but a superheated plasma would penetrate through that crack on reentry.

If you hate the enviroment so much miko i hear mexico city is great, and hell everything is privatised there! it will be heaven your you!

 You certainly jump to conclusions that are in no way connected to the premices.
 You falsely believe that a government does better job of protecting the environment than a private owned does if the property rights were enforced. That is patently not true. The problem in mexico city is the government and not enough property rights rather than too luttle government. It's "communal" rivers, air and forests that are polluted, not private ones. "Tragedy of commons" - ever heard that term? None of communal owners is interested in preserving shared property.
 It's typical of a socialist to use the results of government intervention as justification for more government intervention.

 miko

[Preon1]

Originally posted by miko2d
But the fact that environmental considerations overrode technical ones is worth looking into.

Somehow I doubt that environmental considerations overrode technical ones.  There's nothing wrong with working to make shuttle launches more environmentally friendly, but it's hard to believe that technical requirements would be sacrificed for that goal.

Besides, after reading the article, I would say that the major change that should be implemented would be to improve their fluid dynamics modeling so that they can better explain why they're getting these errant hits.

[Frogm4n]

they are poluted because the government does not enforce enviromental laws, and yes i believe that the government does a better job at protecting the enviroment then the private sector. Corporations only care about the bottom line. Just look at pre Teddy R. america. If it wasnt for our government our land would look like the soviet union where they threw aside enviromental issues because it cost to much to build a nuclear facility with adaquate protection or  coal that would be much easier to strip rather then mined. Its all about cash.

[miko2d]

Frogm4n - government will never enforce enviromental laws any betetr becasue there are always some special interests that need protection - farmers, indistries, etc.

 With strict enforcement of private property rights, one cannot possbly cause serious environmental damage even on one's property that would not somehow (groundwater, air, river pollution, smell, noise, rain run-off, soil erosion) affect/risk a neighbouring property. And then one would be in violation and forced to stop hurtfull activities restore damages and no government would be able to give him dispensation to continue.

 Only when state owns major pieces of property and rivers and does not protect owners from damage to their property byu others current environmental damage is possible.

 You mistakenly assume I do not want good environment. I certainly do and the state does not protect me now and never will.

 miko

[Frogm4n]

your theory was in place in the 1800's it didnt work out to well. and why didnt it? because its all about the money.

[miko2d]

Not true. It was never in place. Free market with strictly enforced property rights never existed.

 Yes. It's all about the money. Money of the people who are affected. So if a factory upstream dumps pollution and it reaches a portion of the river that you own - that would be a violation of your property rights and the state would be obligated to protect you. So a factory would clean up their act. They can influence politicians and bribe inspectors but there is nothing they can offer you short of buying your property or offering full compensation in order to continue.

 If someone cuts forest uphill and the rain washes down on your property - your rights are violated. If his forests is overgrown and causes fire - the same responcibility.
 If someone spews pollution into air that you inhale on your property, the ground water, the animals commonly owned - you would protest and be entitled to protection.
 The state does not do any of that now with the property it owns and does not protect the private owners from damage.

 miko

[Frogm4n]

jeez if they did that all the logging companies would all be sued out of exsistance, i like that. Hell you could sue detroit for the air. And just about everyone that littered. are you sure your not a lawyer?

[miko2d]

Logging complanies would not be sued because they would only log on their own land whichever way they wanted as long as it does not affect the other people's property - including streams and wildlife that pass through it. In fact the logging companies that own forests now are very carefull with it unlike with publicly-owned forests they are allowed into.
 Or they would be invited/allowed on private property of people who own forests to log the way an owner specifies.

 Sure, the cost of lumber would be higher - but the taxes would be lower since there would not be any need to subcidise cleanup/recovery. And unlike taxes, price is paid by people who actually use the lumber, so they will have incentive to use it more efficiently rather than waste it becasue it is "cheap".
  Same with any other business.

 Environmental cleanup/restoration costs are nothing more than subcidies for loggers and lumber users. Or other manufacturers/consumers for that matter. They allow profits to stay private but socialise losses and promote waste. People who pay cleanup/enforcement costs have no influence on the production process - except through politicians who are easily bought off/lobbied. And you cannot sue politicians/government for mismanagement of the "communaly owned" state property - it's called "sovereign immunity".

 Nobody will take care of property as well as a private owner, especially if he can leave it to his children. Of course rabid enviro-nazis can kill all exploitation of the forest but combined with total and unnatural fire-prevention policies it causes deterioration of ecosystems and huge losses due to fires. Those enviro groups have a lot of money. If they could just buy those federal lands (federal land ownership is specifically proscribed by constitution, btw), they could manage them any way they wanted. I would support them and may even contibute to their fund, or better yet buy my own chunk of land.

 One does not need to waive a red flag and sing "international" to love nature and take care of it.

 miko