Shocking New Evidence On 1969 Moon Landing

[Member2019]

How can the United States expect to hold on to its position as world super power if it teaches its children that it is more admirable to be captain of the football team than be an academic leader?
I don't expect everyone to grow up to be scientists, but the average level of scientific knowledge displayed by the general population is pathetic and must be improved.
The United States is setting itself up for failure.

It already has.
You can't sustain R&D when you graduate less than 10,000 engineers a year.
And no, I'm not talking about engineering technologists or technicians, but engineers.
Theory may not be practical, but you still need traditional engineers with the theory to drive R&D.

The US has become a service nation.
Not only have we lost manufacturering, but we're quickly losing R&D.
The stage is already set, too few engineerng gradutes combined with stupid immigration policy have killed our nation as the leading country for technology research.

Organizations like the ABET, IEEE, NASA and others can wave their hands and try to tell people what's wrong, and yet they are never heard.
People want to argue protectionalism v. visas (BOTH sides are wrong), talk about what kids need to learn in school (and apparently focusing on basic math skills are more important than helping people excel), etc...
It is not politically correct (PC) to force our kids to learn a lot of things they used to.

 

[McRocket]

Two shuttle tragedies and a couple of probe goofs -- and NASA isn't respected anymore.
The difference is money, pure and simple -- I'm surprised we haven't had more.
Especially given the number of shuttle missions.

I disagree. The two shuttle tragedies were 'go' fever and arrogance. Pure and simple. Money was a factor; but emotional pressures were more to do with what killed those astronauts; not lack of funds - imo.

The Shuttle program was a waste of money to me. It was limited from the very beginning. It is/was only capable of putting objects into low Earth orbits. My understanding was that almost all that the shuttles did - in terms of useful payload deployment - could have been done cheaper using expendable boosters.
But then, they aren't nearly as sexy.
And the International Space Station? I don't even begin to care about the International Space Station. There are things on Earth that need our attention far more then the ISS does. Of course, out -of-touch-with-reality scientists/engineers would strongly disagree with that.
They should tell that to those AIDS babies dieing in Africa from lack of funds for drugs - just how important the ISS is.

 

[Member2019]

I find it absolutely astonishing that people actually pay money to astrologers and psychics to give them information that a flip of a coin can give them for free.

People are willing to pay more money for entertainment than a quality education.

I challange you and anyone else to come up with a referenced, peer-review published scientific paper that supports any of the psuedo-sciences.

Oh, they exist, but just from a social science standpoint.

I don't deny that the possibility of advanced alien civilizations exist in the Universe (see the Drake Equation for quantifiable speculation).
I do, however, deny that any contact with said civilizations has ever occured, and I seriously doubt that any contact wll ever be made.

But there is still a chance.
My main problem with the "UFO 'thang" is that people cling on to some really unscientific stuff.
It's like they are reaching.
If we have been visited, it's been carefully planned and executed by the visitors to ensure there is only rumor (regardless of their intentions).

Interestingly, while the Drake Equation speculates that large numbers of advanced alien civilizations should exist, the fact that we have NOT detected them gives rise to the Fermi paradox.
Carl Sagan's solution to the Fermi paradox is that advanced civilizations tend to quickly and accidently destroy themselves (nukes, unsupervised nanotechnology, etc. ).

Carl Sagan also postulated that nuclear winter was a probability, one that he later rescinded out of scientific fact.
In a nutshell, physical science can be polluted by social/political science.

The only certainty is physical science that is undeniable -- although some people may not have the knowledge to understand some things.
That's where the doubt comes in, which often results in the social science-driven conspiracy theories.

 

[4G63]

There is Helium-3 on Luna. Helium-3 in the quantities that are found on the Luna could be used in current Fusion reactors, to make clean abundant fuels.

The major companies on Earth don't want clean abundant fuel.

OBD-3 (On-board-diagnostic) the evolution of the standard automotive computer. Is being tested by NASA. OBD-3 has the ability to take over every control in your car, every thing the the ECU (computer) can do, an Operator can do remotely. That means you can get a ticket for speeding seconds after you do it. It's called OnStar* by G.M. NASA was contacted to design and launch and repairer the OnStar* satellites, also 33% of G.M. is earned through other government contracts.

The Government does not want this made public, OBD-3 is scheduled for production worldwide by 2015.

Space travel is prohibited by the U.S. to the point where it is absolutely impossible to even try. Unless the government of The United State's of America overseas every step.

America is the super power, they control space, and they let no-one up there.

 

[hedgehog]

Well I'll go ahead and chime in on this one...

IMO the only reason that the US isn't able to fully fund the sciences and take care of the least fortunate is that the economic greed (there really isn't any other word for it) of the top 1/2% outweighs the wants and desires of the vast majority of people politically.

I never stop being amazed that people will continually vote against their own economic self-intrest because they are afraid of gays marrying or people saying "Happy Hollidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." It is amazing how little socio-economic responsibility those at the top have for the well-being of the less fortunate.

As for the whole ESP/telekinesis thing I have seen double blind studies which seem to show some limited ESP abilities in some people. As to ghosts, I've watched a show on Sci-Fi (I know hardly a reputable source) where they did simultaneous visible light and infra-red photography and there were humanoid images visible on the infra-red which were not on the video recorder.

Then we come to aliens... I myself have witnessed a UFO. Was it alien technology, I don't know. But I can say I saw it take 90 degree turns, come to apparant stop and accelerate sharply, nothing any plane I've ever seen should be able to do using "existing" technology. Of course that depends on what truly is the "existing" technology. Consider the fact that the SR-71 went into service in the '70s, that was 30 years ago, and you're telling me that the F-15/F-22 is the best we can do, please.

 

[hedgehog]

Space travel is prohibited by the U.S. to the point where it is absolutely impossible to even try. Unless the government of The United State's of America overseas every step.

America is the super power, they control space, and they let no-one up there.

It makes me wonder what exactly Richard Branstrom had to do to get Virgin Space to the point it is now.

 

[4G63]

It makes me wonder what exactly Richard Branstrom had to do to get Virgin Space to the point it is now.

Capitalism is Okay. taking money from the public is Americas bread and butter. But doing science and advancing technology is strictly prohibited.

 

[Member2019]

I disagree. The two shuttle tragedies were 'go' fever and arrogance.

Bull! That's the popular version.

There was NOTHING wrong with the original O-Ring design, when used with the ORIGINAL sealant.
It was tested, retested, regression tested and integration tested until the cows came home.
And that included in cold weather conditions -- it would and did work.
It flew without issues UNTIL the change in the sealant by a supplier because of the change in the EPA classification of the sealant.
That's when the statistics started changing, something that wasn't paid attention to.

But the ROOT CAUSE was lack of attention to the Material Reviews (MRs) that caused the first shuttle tragedy.
Had engineers taken the time to properly review the material change, they could have found and mitigated the risk.
But they didn't, for a variety of reasons -- and that will happen again and again.
Not looking at that ROOT CAUSE and trying to mitigate it means you're view is just part of the problem.

Then there was the second tragedy, one that many had been predicting for years.
When the EPA banned CFC usage in 1987, and it went into total effect in 1997, that basically KILLED the CORE DESIGN of the STS' External Fuel Tank.
The ORIGINAL insulation was designed, tested, regression tested and integration tested to have no more than 40 damaged during flight -- virtually all during re-entry.
It was the same CFC insulation we had been using for years in our defense systems -- 40 years proven.
The ORIGINAL STS design could NOT tolerate the case where even *1* part would break off and strike the Orbiter -- the ORIGINAL designers KNEW that would be a receipe for tragedy.

Yet when the EPA mandate went in, NASA made the POLITICAL DECISION to avoid the negative environmental publicity, and adopted a CFC-free foam.
So what happened?
IMMEDIATELY there started to be OVER 100 TILES DAMAGED on every God damn mission.
[ I've seen this CFC-less crap in action in our defense systems -- doesn't make me feel warm'n fuzzy at night knowing this crap can cause our missiles to tumble out-of-control shortly after launch. ]
Over a dozen were having "deep impact" from breakage from the external tank during ascent.
It was SO WELL KNOWN that even the EPA granted NASA an exception to go back to using CFC-based foam.
[ Probably the most arrogant environmentalists I knew were the ones that demanded this not be done, because it could "harm the environment" -- BULL! Not on a single-shot, 4 times/year shuttle! CFCs only [allegedly] harm the ozone layer when used in mass, consumer use! ]

REALITY: Even if NASA wanted to go back to CFC foam, who still makes it in the quality NASA needed?
That's the thing, suppliers are often driven by their commercial production.
So what affected the sealant now affected the insulation -- although the insulation was clearly known beforehand.
So even if NASA stuck it's middle finger up at the environmentalists (and a few engineers did inside of NASA with studies and "open letters" regarding the CFC-less crap), getting it was still difficult.

This is what happens when you have a 25+ year program with a 100,000 part BOM.
Things change, Material Reviews (MR) are incomplete, engineers are negligent, no matter how much they try not to be.
Stuff like this didn't happen on Mercury, Gemini and Apollo because they were under 5 years each!
They didn't have nearly the same number of parts, and they were ALL largely created in *1* run.

E.g., there's no way NASA could build even a Saturn V booster today if it wanted to.
It would have to be totally redesigned and retooled from scratch!

Pure and simple.

Again, that's the media version.
It's easy to chalk things up to emotional and political pressures "of the moment."
It's far more difficult to find out where the "root negligence" is.
The "root negligence" has been, and continues to be, the lack of attention to Material Reviews (MR).

Money was a factor; but emotional pressures were more to do with what killed those astronauts; not lack of funds - imo.

Bull!
The shuttle had already flown for over 5 years -- LONGER than ANY other man program in NASA's history.
Mercury, Gemini, Apollo -- NONE of those programs had to deal with 5+ year lifespans where significant material changes occurred.
Now all of the sudden, NASA has to maintain a system with a 100,000 part BOM for 25+ years!

Furthermore, it's hard to keep the same engineers for more than 5 or 10 years.
NASA continues to be gutted and then re-supplied, losing that mindshare everytime.
That's where even due dilligence in Material Reviews (MRs) also break down.
A part change might seem like no impact to engineers that are newer to the program.
But for the engineers who originally designed the system -- you can be sure the engineers who were involved with the testing of the sealant for the O-Rings back in the '70s might have caught the supplier change some 8 years later in 1995!

That wasn't an issue with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, because each program was sub-5 years.
And there was largely 1-2 suppliers -- North American Aviation being the major one.
Plus those 3 programs were largely over the same 10-12 years.

The Shuttle program was a waste of money to me.
It was limited from the very beginning.
It is/was only capable of putting objects into low Earth orbits.

Yeah?
So?
It's a huge and heavy spacecraft.
It would take a SRB-Hx/LOx combination that would make Saturn V look like a pop rocket to boost something like the STS into geostationary.

My understanding was that almost all that the shuttles did - in terms of useful payload deployment - could have been done cheaper using expendable boosters.

Yes and no, it depends.
Remember, the STS was not designed merely to "send a payload into space."
It was designed to do many other things -- including be a short-term space station, repair unique items in space, retrieve items from space (and I'm not talking about commercial satellites , etc...

Understand that during the 25 year history of STS, there have been almost 10x as many traditional booster launches as well.
We don't use STS for many things that aren't warranted.

But then, they aren't nearly as sexy.

Yeah, that's the problem.

And the International Space Station?
I don't even begin to care about the International Space Station.

I'm not sure if it was a good idea either.
There has been some benefits, but I don't know if it outweighs the costs.
I think NASA could have done far more and better with its money.

There are things on Earth that need our attention far more then the ISS does.
Of course, out -of-touch-with-reality scientists/engineers would strongly disagree with that.

No, it's a good argument, I don't deny it.
Of course, if you mean putting the money into social programs instead, taking away NASA's budget would NOT PUT A DENT in the social services budget of the US.
Heck, even the defense budget is smaller -- and that's even when you include ALL R&D and other things that are not directly defense releated.
Like building the new, 2M node Tsunami sensor net for the Pacific Ocean.
Let alone countless DARPA projects we will benefit from.

They should tell that to those AIDS babies dieing in Africa from lack of funds for drugs - just how important the ISS is.

Actually, the money this country spends on AIDS, Hep-C and other research is far, far bigger than NASA's total budget.
Again, if you start looking at redirecting NASA's budget, and look at the REAL SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET of the federal government of the US, you quickly realize how taking away NASA's budget would NOT even put a DENT in it!
Seriously, go read up on the budget.
Adding a few billion dollars to a set of social programs totaling well over $1T does NOTHING.

Which brings back the R&D aspects.
If we're not even putting 0.1% of our federal budget to "pure" R&D, then we're really in trouble.
Luckily, the US DoD spending still maintains a significant amount of R&D spending -- well beyond just NASA's budget.

I have no problem with social programs.
But right now, social programs make federal-funded R&D look like "chump change."
And that's not good for our future.

 

[hedgehog]

I do think that capitalism is the best economic system. I just believe that unfettered capitalism, like we saw in the 1880s and the 1920s leads to an increasingly large gap between the haves and the have-nots, just like we are seeing today. A progressive tax structure (on both individuals and corporations) is IMO the most moral option. I bust my hump to earn the money I make, and I do get irked when I see how much the government takes out of each check, but then I consider how fortunate I am, and I realize that there are a lot of people out there who are not so fortunate, not just economically.

There are families with members who have devistating diseases for which our taxes fund research. There are incredibly intelligent young men and women who are only able to go to college on Pell grants. Just a thought.

 

[amstrad]

Fair enough. And I challenge you to prove that there is no possibility that they do exist.

Do I also have to prove that Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist as well?

The burden of proof lays before you to support ESP, telekinesis and astrology. If you cannot, then I have no work to do and they remain non-existant.

not everything is proveable in the universe.

I'll take that a step further: Nothing is provable in the Universe, unless you have the priveledge of defining "Universe".

To "prove" something, you must demonstrate that the proposition holds true for ALL cases. Since we cannot know all cases (the Universe is inifinite), proof is imposible.

Mathematicians can construct proofs since they frequently define the universe (Euclidean plane, set of Real numbers, etc. ) in which their proof stands.

Since we cannot prove, we prefer to say "provide supporting evidence".

Again. Prove your theory and I will examine your results. And your last statement is very un-scientific. I thought science was basically developing theories and then proving or disproving those theories using proven and verifiable means.
I do not think 'seriously doubting' is a very scientific term. In my opinion anyway.

Okay. I was stating an opinion. I will restate in a more scientific way.

Given:
No contact has been made (either physical or informational).
The Drake equation predicts large numbers of civlizations in our galaxy.

Theory:
The predicted number of civlizations will be randomly distributed throughout our galaxy. However, the galaxy is so large that the average distance between civlizations is also extremely large (on the order of thousands of light years). Other factors such as temporal displacement and mode of communication also lessen the chance of contact.

Hypothesis:
Future contact with an alien civlization will not be made. (note: this is a falsifiable statement, since evidence of contact would immediately invalidate it)

Until such time as contact is (ever) made, my theory will stand.

Scientific theories are not the truth (there is no such thing). Accepted theories are simply the those theories that best explains the current observed and experimental data. When evidence is discovered that invalidates a theory, a new theory must be devised that encompases all previous data as well as explain the new data. Such as the case with Einstein. His theory of Relativity had to account for all of Newton's findings of gravitation as well as explain phenomena at reletavistic speeds (where Newton's theory falls apart).

 

[Member2019]

I do think that capitalism is the best economic system.
I just believe that unfettered capitalism, like we saw in the 1880s and the 1920s leads to an increasingly large gap between the haves and the have-nots, just like we are seeing today.
A progressive tax structure (on both individuals and corporations) is IMO the most moral option.

I could really care less what is "moral."
But ironically, it's the flat exception + flat tax that results in MORE people working.
You except people to ... say $40-50K, then you flat tax.
If you have a progressive tax, all you do is prevent people from acquiring wealth.

That's does NOTHING to take money away from the people who already have wealth.
But it DOES take away from people who move from poor to middle class and attempt to attain wealth.

People think of wealth, and then vote for higher INCOME taxes -- the two are completely different.
The majority of the middle class takes a great amoung of their discretionary income and invests it in companies, which then create jobs.
Increasing INCOME taxes just takes away from that potential job.

The good $1 can do does not discriminate between someone making $60,000 or $600,000.
Morality has nothing to do with what good it can do for the economy.
In fact, the immorality of it is that the WEALTHY don't pay those taxes -- they can just sit on their money.

I bust my hump to earn the money I make, and I do get irked when I see how much the government takes out of each check, but then I consider how fortunate I am, and I realize that there are a lot of people out there who are not so fortunate, not just economically.

The problem is that I believe I can take my $1 and do a lot better than the federal government does with it.

It's not that I mind the federal government putting a gun to my head and taking half of that dollar.
My problem is when the government comes back in 10 years and says they now need a full dollar to support the agencies and institutions they've built around that.

The closer you get to the end-recipient of that dollar -- the state or even local -- and the farther away from the federal, the more accountability and good it can do.
If I'm going to fund social services, I want to fund state or, better yet, local social services where I can see it.
Where I can hold my neighbors accountable to it.

There are families with members who have devistating diseases for which our taxes fund research.

And I agree.
The amount of research funded in this country is unbelievable!
At the same time, some is "too political."
E.g., the Clinton administration IGNORED the massive Hepitis-C outbreak so much, that a 1998 Scientific American issue finally put the statistics out for all to see.
AIDS gets way too much research in comparison to the seriousness of the Hep-C outbreak, yet the Clinton administration kept the political non-sense going.
Although Bush has boosted Hep-C, it's still not an relevant ratio.

If you don't know what Hep-C does, then let me just point out that it's what killed Mickle Mantle, Walter Peyton, and countless other people who had liver issues -- often (and wrongly) marked as alcohol or other related diseases.
The main differential between AIDS and Hep-C is that the former typically kills in 5 years, the latter takes 20 years.

There are incredibly intelligent young men and women who are only able to go to college on Pell grants. Just a thought.

Now hold on!
Do NOT compare education with other social services.
Education pays REAL dividens -- and it's worth funding the state (or even federal) to ensure people have access to education.
Social services just pays out, and typically gives little return other than for kids.
In fact, I've seen too many programs abused by irrespondible parents that don't take care of their kids.
Or too many hand outs to people who do not have kids.

Like the unmarried guy who has an apartment for $100/month that is twice as big as my house I pay a heck of a lot more for.

As far as the African American, the real insult to an African American is when he/she qualifies for a position on other merits than their abilities.
Every African American I've met doesn't want a hand out, they want a challenge.
The bigots in our ancestry KNEW the way to deny a people their future was to withhold education.
Because that not only affects their future, but the future of their children for generations to come.

That's why I believe in what I call "affirmative education."
We can't do much about older African Americans who have suffered through those generations of denial of education.
But we can ensure that any young African American who qualifies for college can go to college.

Probably the most insulting thing I see repeatedly is the affluent African American who does not need a free ride get it -- the one who went to a good secondary school, and was middle class.
All while the heavily challenged African American, who got a GPA that was 0.5 lower, doesn't go -- his entire situation, environment and challenges that make him a better person (let alone ANYONE of ANY RACE in that environment) sees him at home.

That's why I'm not only a HUGE FAN of the 10% rule, but some responsible African American organizations with *0* political agendas like the Urban League perfer it too.
Heck, even the NAACP pulled out a "Limbaugh-like" comment this week with regards to Donovan NcNabb.
Sometimes they really make me wonder if they are about African Americans, or political alignments.

As far as I'm concerned, the best thing for this country is to give any African American who is in the top 10% of their class and gets into college a free ride -- until the average income of African Americans is within 2% of the median of all other, popular demographs.
All other minorities -- especially those 1st or 2nd generation immigrants who did not suffer, should be left out.
My Irish immigrant accentors were treated like dirt in this country, as were Germans, etc... let alone the original American Indian (although there are many excellent scholorship programs for American Indians, as they do very much deserve it).
Only African Americans were continually and systematically denied education, which affects them today -- they bigots knew how to screw them for generations to come.

 

[McRocket]

First. The quotes in the post directly above this one I did not type.

 

[Member2019]

First. The quotes in the post directly above this one I did not type.

Geez, I did it twice!
Man, I'm really sorry -- I'm not "out to get you" or anything, just really sloppy.
Let this be a real lesson for me to check those quotes.
Or maybe I'll just use the generic "QUOTE" tag without an equals after the initial first quote block.
Anyhoo, it's been fixed.
Feel free to smack a few negative reps for my stupidity.

 

[McRocket]

There was NOTHING wrong with the original O-Ring design, when used with the ORIGINAL sealant.
It was tested, retested, regression tested and integration tested until the cows came home.
And that included in cold weather conditions -- it would and did work.
It flew without issues UNTIL the change in the sealant by a supplier because of the change in the EPA classification of the sealant.
That's when the statistics started changing, something that wasn't paid attention to.

But the ROOT CAUSE was lack of attention to the Material Reviews (MRs) that caused the first shuttle tragedy.
Had engineers taken the time to properly review the material change, they could have found and mitigated the risk.
But they didn't, for a variety of reasons -- and that will happen again and again.
Not looking at that ROOT CAUSE and trying to mitigate it means you're view is just part of the problem.

Was it preventable? Did they have to launch? I would guess yes and no, respectively. The O ring DID fail. The shuttle should have (according to engineer(s) from the manufacturer) blown up on the pad when the engines fired. But the O ring disintegrated and it's remnants fell into the gap and plugged the leak. But after liftoff the Shuttle experienced the largest wind shear ever on a shuttle launch up to that time. It apparently shook the O ring remnants out and the flame escaped and started burning off the main tank support strut. The strut gave way, the tank smashed into the shuttle and that was that.
My information was that there was a conference call between the manufacturer and NASA just hours before the launch. The manufacturer recommended no launch. THe NASA guy pushed them to prove it. They could not so they wilted and withdrew the no launch recommendation and they launched. And hours later the astronauts were dead. NASA knew it could happen (why would they have had the special conference call otherwise) and they let it go anyway. GO fever. The inquiry said as much - if I recall.
It WAS avoidable. Easily avoidable.

The second tragedy (shuttle Columbia) found that NASA was at least partly to blame. And that the accident was avoidable. The accident board found; 'NASA's organizational culture had as much to do with the accident as the foam.' Also; 'Perhaps most striking is the fact that (NASA) management...displayed no interest in understanding the problem and it's implications...some space shuttle program managers failed to fulfill the implicit contract to do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of the crew.'
Bottom line..they let the crew down. It WAS avoidable also.
Human error for both disasters played as much a part of them as mechanical failure.

Yeah?
So?
It's a huge and heavy spacecraft.
It would take a SRB-Hx/LOx combination

What are you doing? How the heck am I supposed to know what an SRB-Hx/LOx is? I find that to be slight intellectual bullying. 'Oh, I will use words that this person cannot know in order to make a point.' You seem like a nice fellow. Please try and remember that not all of us have your level of knowledge.

Which brings back the R&D aspects.
If we're not even putting 0.1% of our federal budget to "pure" R&D, then we're really in trouble.

And what 'trouble' would American's be in?

I have no problem with social programs.
But right now, social programs make federal-funded R&D look like "chump change."
And that's not good for our future.

I am NOT talking about social programs. I am talking about money for drugs and food for starving children in Africa. And any that need it in the 'States and anywhere else in the World. You and I sit in a Safe existence. THey do not. I would never vote for spending money on science programs just so a few scientists can find out how the Universe might have begun by using a billion dollar telescope (Hubble) send up by a multi billion dollar shuttle.
If you take the Hubble money and the two or three shuttle launches it took to get it up their and working properly and I believe you could save the lives of several million AIDS children.
To me; that trade off is completely unacceptable.
Hubble is a science community toy bought with public money. If it was private money then I have no problem with it. But public money I have a big problem with it.
Is Hubble to blame for AIDS babies dieing? No. But if we humans do not take responsibility for each other - regardless of borders - we will never reach a remotely reasonably harmonious world.
Idealistic? Of course. But I am not giving up on idealism just because it is not practical at present. At least not yet.
The U.S. wants to police the World. Why don't they help feed it first?

 

[McRocket]

Geez, I did it twice!
Man, I'm really sorry -- I'm not "out to get you" or anything, just really sloppy.
Let this be a real lesson for me to check those quotes.
Or maybe I'll just use the generic "QUOTE" tag without an equals after the initial first quote block.
Anyhoo, it's been fixed.
Feel free to smack a few negative reps for my stupidity.

No problem. I was not offended. I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you for attending to my statement.

Once again I enjoyed debating with you.

 

[Member2019]

Was it preventable? Did they have to launch? I would guess yes and no, respectively.
The O ring DID fail. The shuttle should have (according to engineer(s) from the manufacturer) blown up on the pad when the engines fired.
But the O ring disintegrated and it's remnants fell into the gap and plugged the leak.

Did you read a word of what I said?
Part of engineering is NOT to just look at the here'n now.
It's to look at the ENTIRE engineering lifecycle.

You and the media might only care about that, but engineering processes that are the ROOT CAUSE of the failure are to blame.
Beyond just what happens NOW, WHY did failures increase over the years prior?
It was because of a MR that wasn't scrutinized enough.
The O-Ring DID work when used with the ORIGINAL sealant.
It was a breakdown in the process.

Understand STS, like any launch vehicle, is one big explosive.
The key is to mitigating the risk as much as possible.
That's what the design was, a massive, mitigated risk.
You can't just mitigate risks by looking at just what happened with 1 part.
You have to look at all the processes involved!

Negligence in MRs continues to be NASA's issue.
The STS is the ONLY program where they've had to deal with suppliers beyond just the initial order.

But after liftoff the Shuttle experienced the largest wind shear ever on a shuttle launch up to that time.
It apparently shook the O ring remnants out and the flame escaped and started burning off the main tank support strut.
The strut gave way, the tank smashed into the shuttle and that was that.

Stop. Again, re-read my statements.

My information was that there was a conference call between the manufacturer and NASA just hours before the launch.
The manufacturer recommended no launch.
THe NASA guy pushed them to prove it.
They could not so they wilted and withdrew the no launch recommendation and they launched.

I never heard this story, and it goes against everything I've ever dealt with as a NASA engineer.
There was the pipe dream of a launch every 7 days, with 28 day refurb early on.
But the "go fever" was not the root cause.

And hours later the astronauts were dead.
NASA knew it could happen (why would they have had the special conference call otherwise) and they let it go anyway. GO fever.

Again, I've never heard of this.

The inquiry said as much - if I recall. It WAS avoidable. Easily avoidable.

But what about the original sealant change?
Again, get past the blame of the here'n now, what about the root cause?

The second tragedy (shuttle Columbia) found that NASA was at least partly to blame.
And that the accident was avoidable
The accident board found; 'NASA's organizational culture had as much to do with the accident as the foam.'

Umm, haven't I been mentioning MRs?
It's one thing to say a generic term like "culture."
It's another to do EXACTLY what I'm doing -- it's the negligence on the MRs!

Also; 'Perhaps most striking is the fact that (NASA) management...
displayed no interest in understanding the problem and it's implications...
some space shuttle program managers failed to fulfill the implicit contract to do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of the crew.'

Okay, that was just non-sense political garbage.
It's after-the-fact non-sense when NOTHING could be done once the STS was in orbit.
Repairs were NOT an option.

Again, after-the-fact non-sense -- total political blame garbage.
The unwritten rule of thumb has always been that if they can't do anything, then there's no need to tell the astronaunts that a risk analysis has been done and there is a 80% you're gonna fry.
Com'mon.

Bottom line..they let the crew down.
It WAS avoidable also.
Human error for both disasters played as much a part of them as mechanical failure.

It was engineering processes BEFORE the launch even occured -- YEARS before.
I've explained that -- yet the popular thing to do is to criticize about things that are a RESULT.

The here'n now is just after-the-fact -- especially after the orbiter is already in orbit, and repairs are impossible.
You can't repair those silica tiles in space.
I really tired of that focus -- it was WRONG and it was POLITICAL.

What are you doing? How the heck am I supposed to know what an SRB-Hx/LOx is?

Sorry, I meant Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) and Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen.

I find that to be slight intellectual bullying.

It was not my intent.

'Oh, I will use words that this person cannot know in order to make a point.'
You seem like a nice fellow. Please try and remember that not all of us have your level of knowledge.

Sorry, I didn't mean anything by it.

And what 'trouble' would American's be in?

Oh, well, considering our economy is strong because we don't overtax our income earners, I thought people in this nation could figure that out.
We raise income taxes, get a nice 2-3 year federal paycheck, then the economy stiffles as a result of reduced cashflow.
That's proof positive of the point of diminishing returns.

I am NOT talking about social programs.
I am talking about money for drugs and food for starving children in Africa.

That IS a "social program."

And any that need it in the 'States and anywhere else in the World.
You and I sit in a Safe existence. THey do not.
I would never vote for spending money on science programs just so a few scientists can find out how the Universe might have begun by using a billion dollar telescope (Hubble) send up by a multi billion dollar shuttle.

Ever consider the technology implications?

If you take the Hubble money and the two or three shuttle launches it took to get it up their and working properly and I believe you could save the lives of several million AIDS children.

Again, I advise you start looking up actual funding before you say more.

To me; that trade off is completely unacceptable.

Again, please look up actual funding before you say more.

Furthermore, throwing dollars at a problem doesn't solve it.
We've been throwing more dollars at AIDS than countless other research since H. Bush was in office.

Hubble is a science community toy bought with public money.
If it was private money then I have no problem with it.
But public money I have a big problem with it.
Is Hubble to blame for AIDS babies dieing? No.
But if we humans do not take responsibility for each other - regardless of borders - we will never reach a remotely reasonably harmonious world.
Idealistic? Of course. But I am not giving up on idealism just because it is not practical at present. At least not yet.

I have no problem with your idealism.
I have a problem with the "tit-for-tat" that just isn't relevant.

The U.S. wants to police the World. Why don't they help feed it first?

Sigh, the US doesn't want to police the world.
We've tried to avoid that for a long time.
Teddy was the first American President to try.
Ironically, he know quite well what would become.
After WWII, in all honesty -- we're not perfect -- but damn if we don't hit things on the nose.

Our only mistake more recently is that we didn't give Bill Clinton the support he wanted when he wanted to go in back in 1998.
We would have caught them red handed, just like we did in 1996 -- after the French and Russians stomped on the Security Council and prevented further inspections because they said there were none back in 1995.
3 defectors quickly saved us.

But instead, we gave them 5 years to get rid of everything and we look like asses.

 

[McRocket]

I never heard this story, and it goes against everything I've ever dealt with as a NASA engineer.

So you are a NASA engineer? Well that explains alot. Facinating job I assume you have.

Here is an example of that meeting I was talking about:
www.onlineethics.org/moral/boisjoly/RB1-6.html

Then that (imo) practically confirms that they knew there was a potential serious problem. And they, imo, should have cancelled the launch. It seems like common sense to me.

The report (on the Columbia disaster) that you are so quick to dismiss was all the public has to go on. You are asking me to dismiss the report as political; even though you apparently are part of NASA? You don't think there is a conflict of interest there?
I see no reason to dismiss the report as political and innaccurate. You are going to have to give me more info then what you have to do that. Alot more.
In all honesty, I believe you are making excuses because you are too close to the program. It's natural. It's human.

That IS a "social program."
Ever consider the technology implications?
Again, I advise you start looking up actual funding before you say more.
Again, please look up actual funding before you say more.

My understanding was that Hubble cost about 2 billion to build and about 1 billion to get into orbit, bring down again, put back up, fix and maintain. Is that woefully inaccurate?

Furthermore, throwing dollars at a problem doesn't solve it.
We've been throwing more dollars at AIDS than countless other research since H. Bush was in office.

So we stop trying? 'Well sorry. We tried to help you. But it just isn't working. So we are going to spent it on a big space station. Sorry.' Geldof quoted what? 5 billion to wipe out either African hunger or AIDS (I forget). Even if that 3 billion for Hubble only saved 3 million people ($1,000 per person); you are saying that is not worth it? And you are right. You do not throw money at it. The World Bank does that with disasterous results. You never give cash. You give items. You give food and medicine that you dispense yourself or through aid agencies that you provide UN or U.S. military escort for. Keep corruption much lower then if you just give cash.

After WWII, in all honesty -- we're not perfect -- but damn if we don't hit things on the nose.

Other then deliberately bankrupting the Soviet Union; since 1955 I guarantee you I can name 5 things that America fucked up royally internationally for every 1 a person could name where they did not.

But instead, we gave them 5 years to get rid of everything and we look like asses.

As far as I am concerned. The U.S. looked like asses in 1991 when they let Saddam slaughter the Kurds and Shi'ites after the Gulf War becuase that (imo) overrated General Sckwartzkopf (spelling?) let the Iraqi's (inadvertently) keep their helicopters active so they could perform said slaughter. ANd Bush senior did not intervene until it was too late in the south and almost too late in the north.
They look like asses for giving Israel 3 Billion dollars a year in military hardware and cash at the expense of the Palestinians even though Israel has for years had absolute military supremecy and does not need American aid to survive - not with nuclear tipped IRBM's they don't. So they piss off the Arab World and 9/11 is a result.
They look like asses for letting the Rwandan slaughter happen; when the UN special envoy to Africa (not sure of his actual title) Stephen Lewis said they could have stopped it. He said something to the effect of 'I don't know how Madeline Albright sleeps at night'. Result? 300,000+ people hacked to death. They look like asses...well, I could go on and on.

 

[Member2019]

[ PART 1/2 ]

So you are a NASA engineer? Well that explains alot.
Facinating job I assume you have.

I used to be a NASA engineer.
I stated this from the get-go in this thread, and explicitly said I'm going to be "biased" as a result.

At the same time, I think you aren't giving me credit for being CRITICAL of NASA.
I have been so repeatedly, including saying I would NEVER fly on the STS -- especially not mid-1997 on-ward.

Now I've also worked in the private sector as well as a defense contractor on everything from Navstar (GPS) to commercial space launch systems to missile defense.

Here is an example of that meeting I was talking about:
www.onlineethics.org/moral/boisjoly/RB1-6.html

Okay, now this is what I knew about -- it's not uncommon.
Literally dozens of exceptions are made every launch -- because if there isn't an exception granted, NO SHUTTLE would EVER take off!
Same deal with Apollo before it, Gemini before that, etc...

The STS is basically one big, huge failure ready to happen, like any spacecraft.
The standard of experimental aircraft definitely applies here, you just try to mitigate risks as best as you can.
Dozens of engineers scream about something being wrong, they are evaluated, and gaged whether or not the risk is acceptable or not.

In the case, the rule of no launch below 53 degrees F wasn't good enough IMHO, and it was a poor mitigation post-1985.
I stress post-1985, because before 1985 and the sealant change, the risk was mitigated.
This reasoning goes back to -- yet again -- the MRs, the ROOT CAUSE!
Had proper MRs been done on the sealant change, then the real risk that O-Rings could break at lower temperatures would have been known.

But they were not, and the statistics of 1981-1984 gave managers reason and proof to believe the risk was mitigated.
It was only recent history that there were any O-Ring issues, and that goes back to the sealant change.
Had the MRs been done proper, then management would have been quite aware that there was a reason for concern.
Instead, they incorrectly concluded that the risk was mitigated.

This happens dozens upon dozens of times per launch.
Otherwise, no STS would EVER leave the pad.
This engineer is clearly reading things how he wants to see them.
I know, I can do the same -- but sometimes, I have to step back and separate the "honest concern" from the "demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with my risk assessment."

In the end, the engineer was right, and he did his job.
But you also have to understand the ROOT CAUSE on why the administration did not heed the warnings -- the lack of good MRs that would have backed up his argument.
This is a repeat theme at NASA, one that they have ONLY learned with STS.
And that's the fact that you don't procure a bunch of materials and don't ever have to re-order because the program lasts less than 5 years.
So now more than ever, management needs to take the MRs more seriously.

Anytime any change occurs in a material, the entire STS system essentially has to be re-certified.
That's impossible, but at least more attention to MRs could further mitigate risks as best as possible.
The most deadly assumption is to use statistics that are incorrect because they are based on a prior "revision" of the STS as a whole.
MRs are the best way to combat that, or at least the best way we know of.

Then that (imo) practically confirms that they knew there was a potential serious problem.

Do you KNOW how many meetings that are like this for EVERY SINGLE STS launch?!?!?!
There have been countless other issues than just the sealant on the O-Rings, and the EFT (external fuel tank) insulation materials.
Risk is mitigated to the best of NASA's judgement, and they ended up being wrong.
Why? The overriding and repeat reason, again, is the lack of attention to MRs.
Had MRs been giving the importance they should, and the attention they need, managers would have at least know to consider the fact that their statistics from 1981-1984 was NOT APPLICABLE.

Again, I'm not interested in the "here'n now" blame of NASA or political considerations.
I'm here to discover WHY the social processes fail -- and that's almost always because someone VIOLATES a core engineering principle.
Even the alleged "Go Fever" has a technical cause -- and that is that with dozens upon dozens of "it's going to blow up" statements from engineers, you finally have to say you've mitigated the risk as best as you can at some point.
Otherwise, the STS would NEVER leave the ground -- PERIOD and we would have NEVER seen even STS-1.

And they, imo, should have cancelled the launch.
It seems like common sense to me.

And I can point you to hundreds of engineers who believe other launches should have been scrubbed as well.
If NASA administrators canceled every launch whenever an engineer felt the launch was at major risk, we'd NEVER have any STS launches.

The report (on the Columbia disaster) that you are so quick to dismiss was all the public has to go on.

I did NOT "dismiss it."
I only dismissed YOUR rather simplistic interpretation of it.
Now that I've seen the article, I know EXACTLY what you are talking about.
You, like most of the public, make it "cut'n dry" -- some engineer said "don't launch."

Again, if that was the case, and NASA NEVER launched when an engineer said something, we'd have 0 STS launches to date.

You are asking me to dismiss the report as political;

No. I dismissed your original interpretation as political non-sense.

even though you apparently are part of NASA?

I was.

You don't think there is a conflict of interest there?

No, because I've been extremely critical of the CFC-less insulation myself since 1997!
I would have NEVER gotten on the STS after the EFT insulation change, and I let people know that.

I see no reason to dismiss the report as political and innaccurate.

Once again, I dismissed YOUR INTERPRETATION of it, not the link you posted.
The public has a tendency to oversimplify things, and this is a perfect example.
I've seen people in this situation at aerospace companies first hand -- even when there aren't people's lives on-the-line.
What you call "Go Fever" I call "okay, at what point is the risk mitigated enough?"

The concept of "think like an administrator" is very applicable -- because administrators are the ones who make the tough decisions.
And they're also "stuck with the check" when they make the wrong call.
It's kinda funny because the "wrong call" can sometimes be don't launch, and that has NOTHING to do with "Go Fever."

You are going to have to give me more info then what you have to do that. Alot more.

Huh? You're the one who offered YOUR INTERPRETATION of that link.
Once I saw the link, I was TOTALLY FAMILIAR with this situation -- NOT your "interpretation" of it.
No offense, but you just have to believe me on this, you have to work in such an engineering setting where EVERYONE WILL DIE EVERY LAUNCH!
That's the reality of space flight.
It's literally like taking a regular end-user automobile and driving its top speed off-the-bat, right from the dealer's lot with 0 miles.
You've had 0 miles to base how the car will perform -- you're stuck with what you get, so you do your damn best to mitigate every risk you can think of.

[ SIDE NOTE: At this point, NASA has concluded they can NEVER adequately mitigate the risk of a vehicle mounted parallel with the launch vehicle.
They believe the STS replacement should be a vehicle that is mounted atop of the launch vehicle.
That way, even if there is a critical malfunction, the survivability of the crew compartment is increased by several orders of magnitude.
Right now, the orbiter is just dead meat if the EFT goes, as well as subject to anything falling off it. ]

In all honesty, I believe you are making excuses because you are too close to the program.
It's natural. It's human.

What "excuses"?!?!?!
Give me some God damn credit here -- I've been more than "open" with the serious and critical issues at NASA for manned spaceflight.
I'm just not willing to oversimply it into a "these people are wrong" type of political non-sense.
The engineering model is not being adhered to as it should, and MRs are the repeat ROOT CAUSE.

The STS is one big, huge failure ready and waiting to happen.
For the same reasons as the recent tragedy, as much as the O-Ring.
But unlike the O-Ring, which was a sealant change within 12 months of the disaster -- we had 5 years of CFC-less foam to worry about.
And every time, there was a combination of political and other influence NOT to make a big deal about using CFC-less foam.

It was considered "politically incorrect" to say we should go back to CFC foam.
In fact, even when someone high up in NASA pushed hard to reconsider, and even got EPA approval to do so, environmentalist groups had a field day!
"NASA doesn't care about the environment. NASA wants to destroy the Ozone. Etc..."

To be continued ...

 

[Member2019]

[ PART 2/2 ]

My understanding was that Hubble cost about 2 billion to build and about 1 billion to get into orbit, bring down again, put back up, fix and maintain.
Is that woefully inaccurate?

Do you know what discoveries Hubble has resulted in?
Some pretty damn big ones -- like the fact that there is not going to be a "big crunch" at the end.
And there are some real quantum physics theories being thrown around on these discoveries -- things that WILL lead to new products.
If not new energy efficient solutions, possible even new energy sources.

That's just 1 thing.
Pure scientific discovery has its place.
Applied science can't be the only thing we do.

So we stop trying? 'Well sorry. We tried to help you.
But it just isn't working. So we are going to spent it on a big space station.
Sorry.' Geldof quoted what? 5 billion to wipe out either African hunger or AIDS (I forget).

This is the type of tit-for-tat non-sense.
The re-allocation of the NASA budget can't do anything about warlords causing the hunger, much less solving the problem of them not distributing any food we send over their.
There are much larger issues involved with feeding Africa than your simplified interpretation.
So what do you want to do, send troops to deal with the warlords?
Com'mon now! You really need to do some homework.

As far as "wiping out AIDS" -- we need a CURE first!
And how do we get a cure, by putting billions towards R&D on AIDS, Hep-C and other diseases.
We're doing that already -- and there's only so much you can do.

Yes, I do agree that AIDS research and feeding people in Africa IS "more important."
But does that mean that we don't do anything "less important"?
If there is anything that is key to microeconomics, it is the concept of returns on investments, and the concept of diversification.

Even if that 3 billion for Hubble only saved 3 million people ($1,000 per person);
you are saying that is not worth it?

Consider the pure scientific discoveries that Hubble does today, and the resulting applied science from it over the next 10, 20 or even 30 years.
Applied science that benefits us in many ways, including how to grow crops in the desert, among many other things.

Do we cut ALL pure research because it's "not as important" in what is needed today?
Or do we balance the needs of today, with the pure research and the promise of tomorrow?

And you are right. You do not throw money at it. The World Bank does that with disasterous results.
You never give cash. You give items. You give food and medicine that you dispense yourself or through aid agencies that you provide UN or U.S. military escort for.

Funny, because most people with your attitude don't see that as necessary.
They are wholly naive with the fact that distributing food and medicine often requires military action.

Keep corruption much lower then if you just give cash.

Agreed, but that wasn't my point.
My point is that there's only so much you can do with funding, even if you fund yourself to do it.
At some point, the extra billion we put into an effort already funded might give little additional result.
Whereas taking away that billion and completely eliminating something else means that other item is gone.

Other then deliberately bankrupting the Soviet Union; since 1955 I guarantee you I can name 5 things that America fucked up royally internationally for every 1 a person could name where they did not.

The United States fucks up everything in its own image.
I don't dispute that, and I fully admit it's a rather arrogant attitude that we have.

Then again, look at the history of the United States -- both the diversity of its citizens, their beliefs, their backgrounds, etc...
then look at why that is the case, why we are strong, why we are the nation we are.
Literally a nation founded on pirates, cast aways and other people NO OTHER NATION wanted.
A nation that took the so-called worst ideas, worst people, most "defective" and "selfish" souls.

Before World War II, the US stayed out of everything -- and it took a direct attack on American soil to change that.
Most Americans did not agree with the views of Teddy from administrations prior, and the Monroe Doctrine yet before that.
But it is the world that often pushes the US into action, an action of arrogant "we know better."
It's flawed, it's opinionated, it's often filled with self-interest.

But can you honestly tell me that that the overall intentions and results of the actions of the United States has been worse than the overwhelming majority of those taken by other nations?
If so, then we'll start with the French -- from the original Treaty of Versai that claimed the US as a French Colony to the donation of the Statue of Liberty by a French individual (NOT the government) to the post-WWI and WWII demains for the return of their colonies to the actions of the French on the 1995 UN Security Council with regards to Iraq.
But even beyond France, there's a whole slew of countries I could continue with.

As far as I am concerned. The U.S. looked like asses in 1991 when they let Saddam slaughter the Kurds and Shi'ites after the Gulf War becuase that (imo) overrated General Sckwartzkopf (spelling?) let the Iraqi's (inadvertently) keep their helicopters active so they could perform said slaughter.

And what would have happened to the coalition had the UN pushed for the ouster of Saddam Hussein?
NO Arab nation signed up for that! And they would have immediately left us!
Talk about "unilateral actions" -- it's easy to say "we didn't finish the job" without looking at the consequences IF we would have "finished the job."

We'd be back in the Security Council, with the French lambasting the US for overstepping the UN resolution to only eject Iraq from Kuwait.
The number of nations totalling over 100 would have been reduced to the, not coincidentally, 30-something that joined us in 2003.
The US would have overstepped its authority -- WORSE than we did in 2003 (because of the subsequent UN resolutions that called for Iraq to unilaterally account for the additional WMDs disclosed and found by both inspectors as well as circa 1996 defectors after Iraq claimed it had "disarmed" and caught in lie after lie -- even after France and Russia backed the Iraq claim, which was due to billions in oil contract payoffs).
At least in 2003, even if you disagree, the UN had over 20 new resolutions calling for Iraq's complete and open disarmanent, and several claimed the truce of the original Iraq war was null and void and Iraq.

ANd Bush senior did not intervene until it was too late in the south and almost too late in the north.

And even the US did that unilaterally, until the UN finally moved on it.
At some point, you're going to stop complaining and actually recognize the US has been "in a pickle" at times on some things.
We try to do the "right thing" and we often only delay on doing it with the best of intentions, but the worst of results.
Hindsight is everything.

They look like asses for giving Israel 3 Billion dollars a year in military hardware and cash

What about the billions Iraq gave to France and Russia in 1994-1995, which led to the stalling of UN inspections due to their vetos on the Security Council?
Where was the outcry when the defectors came forth in 1995-1996, and we caught Iraq red handed again?!?!?!

at the expense of the Palestinians

Don't go there.
Everyone uses the Palestinians against everyone else.
Don't pick a side.

I do agree that the state of Israel shouldn't have been formed smack dab in the middle of the Palestinian homeland.
But that was something done 60 years ago -- largely because Europe did not want to take responsibility for helping them.
But that's 60 years ago -- and bitching and moaning about it now does nothing, and it's exactly the type of rhetoric I'd expect out of a Iranian leader.

even though Israel has for years had absolute military supremecy and does not need American aid to survive - not with nuclear tipped IRBM's they don't.
So they piss off the Arab World and 9/11 is a result.

Be careful with your conclusions.
There is more to the Arab hate of the west than just Israel.
There are the British and other invasions of the late 19th and early 20th century, before even looking at the Crusades.

It's ironic some people call Iraq the "10th Crusade" while not giving the British a similar title for their conquests a century agao.
Talk about ignoring history!

They look like asses for letting the Rwandan slaughter happen; when the UN special envoy to Africa (not sure of his actual title) Stephen Lewis said they could have stopped it.

Almost as much as the asses of Somalia, when US troops started dying because of an overzealous administration wanting to end the problem, but not give the support of Sceptre gunships.
The Clinton administration was scared to get involved with another African conflict because of the Somalia fall-out.
I agree, it was 100% political garbage, but that's what it is sometimes.

He said something to the effect of 'I don't know how Madeline Albright sleeps at night'.
Result? 300,000+ people hacked to death. They look like asses...well, I could go on and on.

But who do we save? What do we do?
Do we continually send troops everywhere?
Or do we let the people fighting over no resources hack themselves to death, while we save our battles for those that do?

I've love to be the idealist you are -- I once was.
But at some point, you have to be a realist.
Especially when you are exposed to some very complex situations and decisions.

 

[McRocket]

You are asking me to disregard the findings of the official inquiries that were chaired by some very reputable people on the basis of what some person on a porn chat forum says? Come on man. Be realistic.
Based on what I have heard and read; the two shuttle disasters were avoidable. The inquiries (imo), in essence, said as much.
Do you have absolute proof - other then your word - that those two disasters were not avoidable - short of never flying the shuttles at all?
Assuming you do not; I think I will stick with what the enquiries found.

BTW What does MR mean?