It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

James Oberg's Statement

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
James Oberg wrote an article trying to debunk Hoagland and Bara claim on their new book.

www.thespacereview.com...

What caught my attention was this statement by him (Oberg).

As explained privately to UPI, the Mars Polar Lander vehicle’s braking thrusters had failed acceptance testing during its construction. But rather than begin an expensive and time-consuming redesign, an unnamed space official simply altered the conditions of the testing until the engine passed. “They tested the [engine] ignition process at a temperature much higher than it would be in flight,” UPI’s source said. This was done because when the [engines] were first tested at the low temperatures predicted after the long cruise from Earth to Mars, the ignition failed or was too unstable to be controlled. So the test conditions were changed in order to certify the engine performance. But the conditions then no longer represented those most likely to occur on the real space flight. “I’m as certain as I can be that the thing blew up,” the source concluded.


Am I to assume that NASA simply changed the test condition such the result would fall within the expected result after an initial failure.

Let look at common scenario. Lets assume Ford built a new revolutionary car. But during crash testing, it failed. But Ford instead of redesigning the car altered the test condition till the test result passed.

If what he state is true, this is utter incompetences and waste of tax payer money on the part of NASA.

Rohn




[edit on 22-1-2008 by rohnds]




 
1

log in

join