Challenger disaster and outlawing asbestos -- the myth

In doing my research I found a thoughtful treatment
of the question of whether outlawing asbestos
caused the Challenger disaster.

See http://info-pollution.com/challenger.htm

Jim Oberg wrote:
In doing my research I found a thoughtful treatment
of the question of whether outlawing asbestos
caused the Challenger disaster.

See http://info-pollution.com/challenger.htm



Intereresting. Launching when ther ambient temp is too low will still
cause problems.

--
Julian Bordas
Rockets should land on their tails
as God and Heinlein intended

"Jim Oberg" wrote:

In doing my research I found a thoughtful treatment
of the question of whether outlawing asbestos
caused the Challenger disaster.

Is this in tandem with work on the the "ET foam falls off because
Eeevull Space-Hating Greens banned freon" story? I'd love to see you
unload both barrels.

"Columbia loss due to environmental regulations"

That's a whole other subject worthy of
more extensive treatment -- and yes, I am
still working on it!

.... and collecting suggested further reading.

"Monte Davis" wrote
Is this in tandem with work on the the "ET foam falls off because
Eeevull Space-Hating Greens banned freon" story? I'd love to see you
unload both barrels.

Jim Oberg,
Asbestos is actually less dangerous to humanity anf the environment
than the Owens Corning as well as the many other birth to grave
alternatives, and a similar argument can be made on behalf of R12
freon. However, at the time the likes of composite basalt and metallic
fibers was certainly worth looking into.

Of what was utilized instead of asbestos did in fact kill those
unfortunate astronauts.

Using expendable composite SRBs or far better yet, using ther much
lighter inert mass of what the LRB alternatives that existed at the
time would have been a win-win all the way around.

Therefore, it's time to re-focus upon the H2O2/RP-1 or better yet, upon
the H2O2/C3H4O LRB/LRM alternatives that's kg/kg worth 50% more payload
than any reusable SRBs, as still offering a good 25% better off payload
capability than most any disposible SRBs/SRMs. At least that's the
current SWAG of what I'm pulling from this following link.

This is what Steven S. Pietrobon and his friend Linder Metts have had
to contribute:

High Density Liquid Rocket Boosters for the Space Shuttle
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf
The LRB has the same propellant mass as the shuttle SRB of 501.8t
Computer simulations indicate that payload mass can be increased by a
third from 24,950 kg
to 33,140 kg for a 28.45°, 203.7 km circular orbit.

The HTML (no copy) version of the
abovehttp://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:d6RJz_mJX0gJ:http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/...+1000+kg&hl=en
Space Shuttle Simulation Program
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/sim/

If mere replacement of the SRBs with the much less inert mass of these
LRBs of H2O2/Kero or I'm assuming RP-1 is what's good enough for such a
conservative 33% boost in payload, then without question the H2O2/C3H4O
should become worthy for nearly a 50% boost in LEO payload, and/or
achieving the same payload at roughly half the LRB mass, by way of
offering far better then a LOX/RP-1 match for achieving the maximum 1st
stage velocity and altitude, whereas considerably less inert massive,
and even remaining sufficiently exhaust velocity suitable for a 2nd
stage core application seems worth our looking into.

Sorry for all of my usual confusing words plus whatever's math that's
not always correct, or that of my interpretations of what's most
important isn't the least bit improtant to those that already seem to
know all there is to know. As I manage to learn more on this typically
need-to-know basis, at least I'll share without ulterior motives or the
sorts of hidden agendas that the vast majority of Usenet rusemasters
seem to be continually involved with.
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
Of what was utilized instead of asbestos did in fact kill those
unfortunate astronauts.

[snip a lot of stuff about alternative propulsion possibilities]


They weren't killed by asbestos or the lack thereof. A problem was
detected in the O-rings on several launches prior to 51L. That problem
was not solved before launch. A faulty decision was made to press on
to launch despite the fact that there evidence of a serious problem
that hadn't been solved. They were launching with some unknowns, and
instead of deciding to stay on the ground until they could prove it was
safe to fly, they decided to press ahead with launch until they could
prove it was unsafe.

EVERY launch technology has potential problem areas. The details have
to be handled exactly right. Problems have to be investigated and
solved. You can certainly propose alternative technologies that would
have avoided the specific scenario of 51-L. Goodness, if the launch
window had been late in the afternoon after things warmed up, 51-L
would have been successful. But with the same management structure and
decision policy had been in effect, given enough time, there would
eventually have been a disaster. Different in its specific details,
yes. In its results, not very.

Columbia is evidence of that. The SRB field joints are completely
blameless in the Columbia tragedy. Asbestos putty had nothing to do
with it. The engineers were able to work within more serious asbestos
constraints than existed in 1986, and yet they still produced a
redesigned SRB that functioned flawlessly for lots of flights, and I
expect will never cause another problem. That specific fix wasn't
enough to save Columbia. The similarity is the attitude of ignoring a
problem, or using the fact that they got away with an out-of-spec
condition on a prior flight as evidence that they should be able to get
away with it in the future. That attitude and decision-making strategy
is what kills.

And given enough time, it'll kill with any launch technology.

--Rich

On 24 Jan 2006 15:07:59 -0800, wrote:

And given enough time, it'll kill with any launch technology.

....Speaking of killing, would you PLEASE just killfile Guthball? He's
not worth the bandwidth waste, as he's nothing but a psychotic troll.
The child-molested ******* is so whacked out of his gourd, he's even
identified a picture of a cheese pizza as the surface of both Venus
and Mars.

Please. Enough. KILLFILE HIM AND PUT HIM OUT OF OUR MISERY!

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

topic: Challenger disaster and outlawing asbestos -- the myth
rcoch; Columbia is evidence of that. The SRB field joints are
completely blameless in the Columbia tragedy.
OK Mr, rcoch (aka save thy brown-nosed butt rusemaster),
Apparently this is another Usenet word game of your having
implanted/switched the Columbia fiasco for the Challenger, and somehow
in that way clearing the entire asbestos/O-ring matter, because
therefore it supposedly never actually happened because of any removal
of asbestos and/or via any subsequent replacement by an inferior
product that simply failed every test, including having failed the real
thing.

Let me get this into perspective. With your best straight face and
extremely brown nose none the less, you're saying there was no such
O-ring packing substance issues, nor of any such asbestos formulated
putty associated with those SRB O-rings that made any measurable
difference whatsoever, with or without asbestos?
http://info-pollution.com/challenger.htm
"Because of an EPA ban on the use of asbestos, a non-asbestos
containing putty was substituted which didn't have the insulating
fire-retardant powers of asbestos."

"The putty protecting the critical O-rings in the Challenger's two
booster engines against the fiery rocket exhaust had been failing as
far back as 1981 because of a lack of effective asbestos insulation."

http://brian.carnell.com/3334
"What prevented the blow-bys from advancing was the asbestos sealant.
It is almost as though the pre-Challenger shuttles were held together
by a kind of garish and toxic chewing gum... That's the level of safety
NASA promoted pre-Challenger."

And such listings seem to go on and on, as most often having additional
links within that seemingly go on and on as to specifically addressing
the putty failure that was specifically due to the exclusion of
asbestos. In other words (as a question); you're going to stick with
that pathetic LLPOF story that there was nothing of putty that was
important enough as to backing up or otherwise packing within, around
and between the "O-rings" per SRB joint?

Just for my being absolutely certain of what you posted was for real,
and I'm asking this as a final question; As per what your flapping
butt-cheeks are telling us, is that there never was an asbestos
associated factor with such O-ring failures?

Exactly where's the "myth" part of this infomercial (aka NASA damage
control) contribution of your's?
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
ups.com...
topic: Challenger disaster and outlawing asbestos -- the myth
rcoch; Columbia is evidence of that. The SRB field joints are
completely blameless in the Columbia tragedy.
OK Mr, rcoch (aka save thy brown-nosed butt rusemaster),
Apparently this is another Usenet word game of your having
implanted/switched the Columbia fiasco for the Challenger, and somehow
in that way clearing the entire asbestos/O-ring matter, because
therefore it supposedly never actually happened because of any removal
of asbestos and/or via any subsequent replacement by an inferior
product that simply failed every test, including having failed the real
thing.


It wasn't the putty that caused the burn through as I remember
the issue. The putty was supposed to prevent the gasses from
getting to the o-ring, but if it did get past the putty, the oring
was supposed to then pressurize and seal tight. But the
oring couldn't seal because at launch the joint rotated and
opened up, preventing pressure from building against
the oring and instead just burning it. And the sealing of
the oring lessened with lower temperature.

The oring was still the primary seal, not the putty.
And I doubt it was the characteristics of the putty
that allowed gas to get past it, if the joint is
flexing during launch it's not going to seal well.




Let me get this into perspective. With your best straight face and
extremely brown nose none the less, you're saying there was no such
O-ring packing substance issues, nor of any such asbestos formulated
putty associated with those SRB O-rings that made any measurable
difference whatsoever, with or without asbestos?
http://info-pollution.com/challenger.htm
"Because of an EPA ban on the use of asbestos, a non-asbestos
containing putty was substituted which didn't have the insulating
fire-retardant powers of asbestos."

"The putty protecting the critical O-rings in the Challenger's two
booster engines against the fiery rocket exhaust had been failing as
far back as 1981 because of a lack of effective asbestos insulation."

http://brian.carnell.com/3334
"What prevented the blow-bys from advancing was the asbestos sealant.
It is almost as though the pre-Challenger shuttles were held together
by a kind of garish and toxic chewing gum... That's the level of safety
NASA promoted pre-Challenger."

And such listings seem to go on and on, as most often having additional
links within that seemingly go on and on as to specifically addressing
the putty failure that was specifically due to the exclusion of
asbestos. In other words (as a question); you're going to stick with
that pathetic LLPOF story that there was nothing of putty that was
important enough as to backing up or otherwise packing within, around
and between the "O-rings" per SRB joint?

Just for my being absolutely certain of what you posted was for real,
and I'm asking this as a final question; As per what your flapping
butt-cheeks are telling us, is that there never was an asbestos
associated factor with such O-ring failures?

Exactly where's the "myth" part of this infomercial (aka NASA damage
control) contribution of your's?
-
Brad Guth

Sorry, but yet another good save thy butt try by "jonathan" (aka Usenet
rusemaster wizard of disinformation infomercials).

How about your explaining TWA flight-800 using that same brown-nosed
phony baloney conditional physics and soft-science?

And I doubt it was the characteristics of the putty
that allowed gas to get past it, if the joint is
flexing during launch it's not going to seal well.
Thus is exactly why you'll need a good and reliably proven putty.

BTW; the replacement putty failed to insure not one but two O-rings.
It's called a big-ass MF MISTAKE that became a wee bit lethal, and
billions upon billions spendy as all get-out.
-
Brad Guth