That Interesting Foam Situation

Cardman wrote in part:


The first case of the paranoid idiot syndrome crops up from those
people who cannot even do a simple E=MC2 calculation.

I'm not familiar with this equation. Perhaps you're thinking of E=mc^2.
Or maybe the MC5. They rocked, that's for sure.

Columbia's foam problem came about due to using weaker CFC free foam
that lead to foam breaking off while still thick in the Earth's
atmosphere.

Thanks, Rush.


--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:07:24 GMT, Unclaimed Mysteries
theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysterie s.net wrote:

Cardman wrote in part:

The first case of the paranoid idiot syndrome crops up from those
people who cannot even do a simple E=MC2 calculation.

I'm not familiar with this equation. Perhaps you're thinking of E=mc^2.
Or maybe the MC5. They rocked, that's for sure.

I am sure that you know what I meant. I did desire to do a small 2,
but I lacked the keyboard character for it. Next time I will keep in
mind the correct Usenet version for this equation.

Well it is true to say that many people have gone quite paranoid over
this minor foam issue. I was just watching my local news report, where
they called it "foam shrapnel". Beyond the clear incorrect use of this
word, then I would still find it hard to put these two words together.

They also called it a near repeat of the Columbia incident. This
clearly highlights their avoidance of the truth in order to make more
of a story of it than what there is. Liars.

I am sure that it cannot just be me who considers this the safest
Shuttle Launch to date? How many of you would like them to fly with
the old leaking SRBs and the CFC free foam? Yikes. And they really did
used to be happy doing that.

This is not to say that I have not directly said before that anything
hitting the orbiter is undesirable. However, this is clearly not a
foam problem, but a SRB separation one.

After they had worked hard to improve their explosive bolts system,
then it is hard to say just what did fly off this SRB and to cause
this foam to detach. Maybe it was a small piece of bolt. It could have
also been a fluke that may not be seen again for a long time.

So I agree that this matter should be investigated and any suitable
improvement made. However, I would certainly disagree with grounding
the Shuttle fleet, in order to fix a minor problem that could simply
be worked out during future production.

There is no real risk from any foam coming off at this point anyway.

And so they want to switch off their human space flight programme for
another year, just because they are too "girlie" to say that this slow
moving foam is an acceptable risk. An acceptable risk that they could
minimise in future on-time flights anyway.

I do not see that NASA's current position is acceptable. With every
unwelcomed creak and groan ye olde Shuttle makes they are going to
ground them. And with this current attitude I doubt that they will
even manage 12 ISS construction flights before 2010.

And NASA is not even voicing the right words to say that this foam was
harmless and that this was the safest Shuttle flight to-date. I also
know why they are not saying the obvious, when anyone voicing
something that goes against apparent safety would be virtually
"murdered". So instead these publicity seeking hypocrites like to say
things like "They were lucky to escape undamaged".

However, their current position is disrespecting all their own
employees, who worked long and hard to make the latest Shuttle launch
as safe as it currently is.

I am sure all astronauts, would be perfectly happy to ride this new
Shuttle, exactly how it is. The safest one to date. And where this
foam detaching during SRB separation really is a harmless event. You
can estimate the energy of that foam for yourself.

It would even be more valid to question the very safety of their
"cannot be turned off" SRBs. I like their SRBs. However, even I can
see that these are more unsafe, by their very nature, than this chunk
of slow moving media seeking foam.

Just maybe they will come around in time. Then again they could really
ground their perfectly working Shuttle for another year, over this
very foam paranoia.

And you would really let this management send people to the Moon and
beyond? They certainly would not get far, when they are now unable to
handle acceptable risks.

Maybe this fear of being wrong, in such judgement calls, is another
legacy of Columbia. That however is not what leadership is about. No
leadership is about doing the job that you are required to do, then to
let history judge your actions.

And any Shuttle Manager should be happy to risk the lives of a crew
over this minor foam problem, when as I pointed out above, this
Shuttle could easily kill a crew though a SRB or SSME mistake. It is a
worthy note of Shuttle safety that there has not yet been such an
incident.

The problem here is that NASA, out of simple fear, is failing to do
the job that the US government, and local tax payers, is paying them
s**t loads of money to do.

In time they could certainly "come around", but the current leadership
does seem to be quite lacking.

Yes, the Shuttle does really kill astronauts at a rather high rate. It
does not seem an acceptable solution to solve this problem though
non-use, when planes and cars are also known to kill people. Does
society stop when people die? No...

It is true to say that maybe ISS construction is not worth the life of
another 7 crew members. However, NASA due to events has drawn the
"short straw", where they have an ISS to build, even if it does one
day cost the lives of another crew.

At least NASA is no longer playing the game of removing all likely
hood of an accident through safety upgrades. However, they have yet to
find an alternate way of dealing with the possibility of another
Shuttle loss. Currently they are playing avoidance, where that is not
an acceptable solution.

So would NASA please fly the Shuttle that they have just spent many
more billions on. Yes, so it is a little "flaky", but this is
certainly not a matter to be concerned about. Past launches are sure
to have been much worse.

Cardman.