Columbia Shuttle Report

Views,

Did the report go deep enough ?

Why are we using computers 20 years out dated?

Is only one agency enough or does our gov need create a second agency to promote competition?

What question should we be asking Nasa?

I remember a senator complaining Goldin that it took 45 min to land, why is Nasa looking into this and not the FAA, too many chiefs trying to declare Nasa's role?

Is DOD running our shuttle program doing too much spy work for them and thus why television is delayed by so many seconds to hide what their really up to?

This was created for us the people or a civilian space agency wasn't it?

Michael

Ps- 4 me I have tried unsuccessfully to get those in charge to talk back, even when trying the President of the United States.

The best descriptions I can think of is "white wash" and "The Warren Commission".

Originally posted by Ark-Angel
Why are we using computers 20 years out dated?

I can answer this one. Power consumption and shielding are the two most predominant reasons.

dragonrider,

I agree, and seems all who stop by are saying the same thing. I'm still angry over the fact that we did nothing and saw a repeat of Challenger all over again.

www.space.com...

A Columbia investagator wanting more out of Nasa....interesting


Michael

ps- I've posted a letter I sent to our President on my website,

home.earthlink.net...

[Edited on 30-8-2003 by Ark-Angel]

Originally posted by dragonrider
The best descriptions I can think of is "white wash" and "The Warren Commission".

Okay, with all due respect, DR, BS.


We don't need that same BS shared with us as fact...thank you very much. If you get ready to deal in facts, please feel free to input.

I have now trudged my way through about a 1/4 of the document. I find it to be omni-direcitonal. My biases are admitted and can be fully researched on this board. BUT, I feel (so far) that the investigation was performed in a thorough and logical manner.

Edited because I was hateful to DR and I respect him. I'll just call BS on his statement for now.



[Edited on 30-8-2003 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by dragonrider
The best descriptions I can think of is "white wash" and "The Warren Commission".

Okay, with all due respect, DR, I'm fed up. You are my friend, but I am half past give a # with your mystique-building.

Please go back up to my post as I was asking Views, not Facts.

Also I respect both your views but the tone sounds a little hostile! Freedom of speech is what I'm after here just your view,

Should Nasa keep flying shuttle's or should it finally be turned over to business to perfect it's use.

Throwing words at each other is not what this topic is about and both views are needed to see how this tragedy hit us ALL.

Please take off the gloves and lets speak our views without slamming others

Michael

[Edited on 30-8-2003 by Ark-Angel]

Second, your "insider information" is most likely coming from the same source no matter whether you are talking about your beloved HAARP or any other conspiratorial bent....some "smarter than you" MoFo who picked up a VERY gullible and paranoid poster on ANOTHER conspiratorial board has packed your backside with BS. Posted by ValHall

When you seal yourself into a Level A Hazmat Suit, with an airpack that is your lifespan for the next 60 minutes, and you take a walk in a room full of cylinders that you know if one cracks open many people can die in an instant, you trust the person who brings you there implicitly....

Ark-Angel

There is no hostility between DR and myself...probably never will be. My delivery is usually what leads people to believe I'm angry or something...whatever, how I say things is as much me as what I say.

What is DR's view?

Mine view is that a lot of hard work went into a lot of thorough analysis to draw up a rather well-written findings document which is backed with sound physical testing.

DR

Without breaking your confidence I will say to you that maybe you should hold off on drawing a conclusion on this one as there is a conflict in what 1 is saying versus what another 1 is saying. OK??? (check u2u) I wouldn't classify us as being very far into a fact-finding mission would you?

OK, my views on NASA,

1. Sean O�Keefe is not the person who should be in charge of NASA, but should be in charge of its financial affairs.

2. No direction on where we are heading, example �we can put a man on the moon � but we can�t put a man on the moon�. Why did we go, to perfect the perfect ICBM to blast our enemies.

3. Public interaction is a lip service, having spent 23 years trying to get a topic started about Shuttle safety only to be completely ignored.

4. NASA for its own sake needs a second agency to compete against, like Intel has AMD, or Chevy with Ford. Having no competition has taken the edge out of this once awesome agency and what�s the phrase � absolute power brings with it absolute corruption�. So it wastes money on programs that in my mind belong to other agencies.

5. Congress has got to get this agency back on track of doing what it was suppose to do, explore space, In 2001 I believe Dan Goldin was called before the committee to go over its budget, long over due in Dan�s view. During that meeting a congressman was asking Dan Goldin why it took 45 min to land at an airport. The FAA is the correct agency that should own that responsibility and NASA should be doing things that are in space. Spending time and money doing those pet projects of members of this board spell disaster in under mining the true purpose of NASA, to explore space.

6. Defense budget , each branch ( Army, Navy, etc ) of the Gov. must try and grab as much as they can to keep projects alive and start new ones. NASA needs a second agency so just as those of defending our Nation must justify the need for their projects NASA would have to keep its book balanced. Something that is always in the RED when it comes to cost of projects. This would help them keep watch on projects and the cost of each, perhaps even helping to slap those that are heading to run over cost, again something Nasa has a reputation for doing

7. Public review board, on launch and in orbit projects. This would be similar to police internal affairs, setup to watch over NASA and to make recommendations on say tile hitting a shuttle on lift off. Leaving NASA to make the call on what is or isn�t needed has brought down the reality of being blind to its own faults. A second set of eye�s being not part of Nasa and made up common people who�s interest in space are joined with Nasa to preserve it�s integrity of workmanship.

8. Automate building of those components such as the External Tank, taking from the car manufacturing industry on how to automate the process of assembly thus reducing the over all cost of 30 million dollars on something we intend to throw away. Nasa the job shop is one of it�s nick name�s, seen with the cost of building the E.T. at such a high cost it would appear to be correct.

9. Access to the blueprints so people can explore improving the operation of vehicles by assisting NASA thru a mechanism of a relationship with the Public. Our tax money paid for these machines yet denied access to them. Having them open for internal use within our country, we don�t want N. Korea getting their hands on an ICBM now do we. Thus review boards that can assist people wanting to contribute to helping NASA reach its goal.

Just a few views,

Michael

Ark

I agree with you to the letter!

I am curious, have you read (or started reading) the report yet? Some of the points you have made are, in fact, discussed as systemic problems.

P.S. Does anybody notice how I keep pushing the document???

There's a reason for that you know. How can we possibly draw conclusion on the validity of the document if we don't take the time to read it ourselves? How can we form an opinion of the methodology of the accident investigation if we don't take the time to review it?

I'm not letting up on this. Trying to pull off the shade of conspiracy concerning this accident, and then not taking the time to review the official statements is stinky stinky business at best.

EDITORIAL NOTE: Please note that my delivery was much better on this one - note the use of "stinky stinky" versus alternatives. Where's my cookie????

[Edited on 30-8-2003 by Valhall]

Well, I'm still deep in the bowels of a 248 page sleeping pill. Actually, it's not that bad a read.

It looks like, according to this investigation that three separate severe wind shear hits during ascent set up a combination of mechanical loading, aerodynamic forces and oscillations due to sloshing of liquid oxygen in the ET that could have caused the foam to give up the ghost.

Now, that's just the physical cause portion. The document is also addressing organizational, management and public/government issues that also played into this.

I am try to take notes when I find a more impressive statement, that's why it's taking me so long to get through it.

My views are and have that those who fly these awesome machines should have options when it come's time to bail.
As stated I've tried in vain to get Nasa to have an open discussion on how they are prepared to overt death if it comes knocking.
Under Regan I sent him my fully built model with what I called then and today a life POD. Like Apollo and the earlier attemps we always pushed to insure the lives of the people riding them.
With the Shuttle program it has taken on the mind set of conventional air travel as when you fly on a jet you have no means of escaping the results of a plane crash.
We can if they wanted too over come this problem in the shuttle, by adding what I saw being a Life Pod or crew compartment that could detach and fly under it's own power. So that at point Zeor or ground 0 if an accident occured we could launch the Pod, currently all onboard would be lost, using a Life Pod design we could jettison it like Apollo and save all onboard.
In the 23 years that I've been knocking on Nasa I've gotten nothing back. Not part of their " Club " is all I can think of. I'm not an engineer but I was shown the first shuttle blowing up and tried constantly to get replies on how they were going to protect the crew. NOTHING is what I got and the crew got the same thing!
I sent CAIB my views on Why Columbia just as Challenger were Lost from Management that complely failed to listen to those who had the wisdom to speak. Columbia was a reverse in that management said no one told them, and that is what they learned from Challenger, denialbility to protect those in management from taking the blame on what was their call.

ANGRY, God was I mad when this craft fell apart from what was clearly in my mind failure of management to consider even looking at how much damage may have been done as that would have been a statement on their part of being aware of damage to the shuttle, so they stopped any picture taking showing any damage.

Yes I've been reading what I hope are some of my thought I passed onto the board with neglect as the cause of this failure. Sean O'Keefe failed to take watch over this program believing he was not qualified as an engineer. The President of the United States doesn't have to understand War but will keep an eye on it. Manger is someone who takes control, supervisor is one who watches, O'keefe is a watcher and should be put into that position.
Clint Eastwood did a movie "Heartbreak Ridge", this was just that with our best giving up their life for one not willing to take reponsibility of a manager.

Michael
Sorry if I offend anyone but this was something that could have be fixed, but like the Titanic was believed unbreakable.........

Where would you put an escape pod like the ones used on the Apollo missions? It would, of course, have to be bigger to account for the 7 man crew versus the 3 man crew. If we did use the cargo bay; where would we put the cargo?

The only thing that NASA needs, in terms of competition, is in their ideology. Not another department that would be splitting the funds. If they were to compete, then they wouldn't be too quick to share information. Lots of research would be done twice. An under funded orginization under pressure will be even less effective. I'm thinking of a review board of people of about the size of the CAIB. They would go around, outside of NASA's hierarchical management, and talk to engineers after missions and such. Oh! I forgot! They are already going to do this. Nevermind!

[Edited on 31-8-2003 by TheManWithThePlan]

But there is already a system in place that ANY employee of NASA can anonymously squeal like a pig on ethical, safety, whatever issues. So the problem might not lie in whether they CAN report concerns. NASA is the grandest "what if" environment I have ever been exposed to. EVERY concerned raised by anybody, no matter your position or your seniority is considered. I was not witness to any concern ever being brushed off.

Originally posted by TheManWithThePlan
Where would you put an escape pod like the ones used on the Apollo missions? It would, of course, have to be bigger to account for the 7 man crew versus the 3 man crew. If we did use the cargo bay; where would we put the cargo?

The design that I was working on would take the crew section and turn it into a Life Pod,(similar to the Apollo series had of seperating from the main body) Austin Powers mini me, with a mini shuttle look to it. Also I had taken the flight deck and turned it into a work deck by extending that area 10 to 15 feet. Thus this mini shuttle having the main computer would only need to be grounded on upgrade. The main body would still be put in use.
Create another agency in my mind would help worm out those programs that don't belong to Nasa such as the comment on how long it took to land, from the congressman.

Michael

[Edited on 31-8-2003 by Ark-Angel]

Developing ways of repairing the Heat shield in space wouldn't cost as much as designing a new shuttle based on the old one and building it. It should be easier ,in space, to apply the Carbon plates then it is to do on Earth. You already are in a vacuum.

Originally posted by Ark-Angel

Originally posted by TheManWithThePlan
Where would you put an escape pod like the ones used on the Apollo missions? It would, of course, have to be bigger to account for the 7 man crew versus the 3 man crew. If we did use the cargo bay; where would we put the cargo?

The design that I was working on would take the crew section and turn it into a Life Pod,(similar to the Apollo series had of seperating from the main body) Austin Powers mini me, with a mini shuttle look to it. Also I had taken the flight deck and turned it into a work deck by extending that area 10 to 15 feet. Thus this mini shuttle having the main computer would only need to be grounded on upgrade. The main body would still be put in use.
Create another agency in my mind would help worm out those programs that don't belong to Nasa such as the comment on how long it took to land, from the congressman.

Michael

[Edited on 31-8-2003 by Ark-Angel]

There's a problem with this though. The crew cabin MUST integrate with the other systems onboard the orbiter's body. One single conduit will make this infeasible.

[Edited on 31-8-2003 by Ark-Angel]
Valhal:
There's a problem with this though. The crew cabin MUST integrate with the other systems onboard the orbiter's body. One single conduit will make this infeasible.

Correct and working on computers the term reduntancy is required to keep your system up in the event of failure. Having 3 conduit connection for backup and fail safe to again have options for those flying.

I put the dream sent to the President on my website for all to read if they wish too???

Michael

This article from the NY Times points out many similarities between the Columbia and Challenger accidents.

NY Times

For those of us who covered the investigation of the space shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, the parallels with the latest inquest into the disintegration of the shuttle Columbia in the skies over Texas are eerie, and deeply disturbing.

As the final report of the latest investigation made clear last week, it is striking how closely history repeated itself in these two tragedies. The Challenger exploded shortly after liftoff, the victim of faulty O-ring seals that allowed hot gases to escape from a booster rocket and ignite the huge external fuel tank. The Columbia disintegrated on its way back to Earth, the victim of a chunk of foam insulation that broke off the external tank and hit the leading edge of a wing, allowing hot gases to penetrate and melt the innards. In both cases, there had been ample warning of problems that were never quite fixed and were tolerated as acceptable risks.

NY TIMES ARTICLE

They both could have been avoided.