NASA email suggesting proposed coverup?

After the Columbia disaster, it sounds like at least a few people wanted to go through the email system and delete anything that could be potentially incriminating...

And who says that NASA is forthright with thier information?

NASA Worker Proposed 'Scrub' of Web Site

Friday August 29, 2003 7:39 AM


By TED BRIDIS

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - NASA braced quickly for the intense investigation into the Columbia disaster, according to newly disclosed e-mails that include one proposal by a midlevel employee at headquarters for a ``complete scrub'' of the agency's safety office Web site to remove outdated or wrong information.

The employee, Wilson Harkins, warned that such information could become ``chum in the water to reporters and congressmen.''

``We wouldn't want to be sucker punched by someone based on something we have posted,'' Harkins wrote.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration records show that 18 routine documents were added to the Web site since the Feb. 1 shuttle accident and none was removed. Spokeswoman Melissa Motichek said Harkins was trying to make sure the site was accurate and up-to-date.

www.guardian.co.uk...

dragonrider, how do you come up with stories like this at the rate that you amazingly do. I vote for you as the medal thingymagig that is given out every month.

edit:damn, if only i could!!!!!!!!!

[Edited on 1-9-2003 by TheManWithThePlan]

Thanks, but Ive already won it, lol! I do appreciate the sentiment though...

I do look forward to Vals input on this one...

I sure would like to read this email myself. Have you been able to locate any site that has the actual text?

The things that come to my mind are:

1. What authority did the writer of the email have? He might have been a midlevel manager of a group that has nothing to do with the safety webpage he was alluding to. It could have been a comment like me u2uing you and voicing concern over the WITD fiasco....doesn't mean that I have any power over it.

2. I agree that everything should have been frozen. It sounds like it was (the additions were probably related to ongoing operations such as the ISS and probably HAD to be added for new procedures)...nothing was removed.

3. I agree with Harkins' comments although he was a flaming idiot to put them in writing. Outdated materials on a safety website is, indeed, chum for reporters...so was Harkins' email.

DR...if you can find the text of the actual email...be sure and share it with us!

I'll see what I can find, I just stumbled on this particular article...

Don't quote me, but I think it might be in here somewhere:
www.nasa.gov...

-B.

It's gonna be some where in the big fat cesspool...

www.nasa.gov...

I'll start digging.

Here it is:

the specific email concerning scrubbing the safety site is on down the line in this doc...

www.nasa.gov...

Here are the things I notice:

1. Not all of the email conversation is contained in that document. Did you notice the edits???

2. It appears a committee was formed to create the "official line". Some will want to claim that is evidence of a conspiracy or a cover-up. That's not how I see it, or take it. This committee was most likely tasked with trying to figure out the questions that would be asked prior to being asked so that they could ask the questions first and get the answers...no surprises.

3. Even though part of the conversation has been deleted, it appears that this was early on in the team forming process (maybe the first tasking email sent to the group) and it appears it was a petition for brainstorming - i.e. So let's start thinking of what we will be asked type stuff.

and there was just a 5.9 in southern china!

Valhall

Thanks for the post - I was discussing the FOIA stuff last night - I think some of the requests point in certain directions that im sure NASA doesnt want to go down. However can you guys on the board tell me - if a request for a FOIA release is made - does it have to be published ? even if denied - or can they bury the ones they dont want to under whaterver spurious reason they can find ?

to follow my favorite maxim - its not always the answers - if you look close at the questions intent is obvious

Just wish, if its is that open, we could have disclosure like this in the Hutton Inquiry in the UK

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand they are not required to publish publicly ANY FOIA request, whether granted or rejected. DR? B? Is this correct?

In other words, my understanding is that if I submit an FOIA request, and it is accepted, the only requirement is that they release copies of the document to me, the requester.

SO, I would think the answer would be NO...NASA probably does not have a published list of DENIED FOIA requests.

Thanks for the clarification - I did wonder. But i found what was requested interesting to say the least - I am sure this was a catasrophic accident - but was interested in where people were loocking for answers. Sorry if i dissapoint in a look for smoking guns - just rather - shouldnt the shuttle have systems for retrieval if things go awry on take off.

For our part (municipal gov), we HAVE to release the requested information "if reasonably possible and accessible" to the requestor ONLY. We are under no obligation to publish it.

To my knowledge, Val, that's correct.
The requestor can publish the docs, but the entity the docs originated from are not required to do so.
foia.state.gov...

I may be misinterpreting this (I'm not a lawyer!) but I think that's how it goes.

-B.

Dragonrider - that i understood - I was asking if a request denied was published

It looks like the answer is no. I don't think we'll be able to find a compiled list published by any government agency of denied FOIA requests.

Concerning your comments on fixing the problem. That will now be the great debate. There will be two camps:

1. Yes, the problem should be fixed and risks reduced further for future shuttle missions.

2. No, we should not be further distracted by trying to design out further risk in the shuttle program but should that time and money to move on in space exploration development.

Something to keep in mind when thinking these things over: YES, we lost 7 people and a big-bucks craft. BUT, the 7 people KNEW that when they were strapped into those seats, laying on their backs, waiting to be launched into orbit, that they might not even live long enough to make it there. We can mourn OUR loss, but we shouldn't be distracted with some misplaced grief concerning the loss that the astronauts suffered. They knew full well the risks (i.e. they knew there were risks that hadn't even been discovered yet).

My personal opinion is we need to march on toward greater endeavors.