NASA Slated over safety

Well heres one story Ron Baalke wont be pushing, so NASA has
finally been slated for its complete lack of safety concerns.

Will the space shuttle ever fly again?, nope and good riddance to it.

Will NASA survive, only in a limited way now. They no longer have
a useable launch vehicle for people. NASA have taken a giant
leap for mankind, backwards by about 30 years.

Well back to the drawing board then NASA, you could do worse than
resurect the Apollo program, at least that was a success.

So Bert was right all along, NASA killed seven astronauts, heads
must now roll.

Frog wrote:

Well heres one story Ron Baalke wont be pushing, so NASA has
finally been slated for its complete lack of safety concerns.

Will the space shuttle ever fly again?, nope and good riddance to
it.

Will NASA survive, only in a limited way now. They no longer have
a useable launch vehicle for people. NASA have taken a giant
leap for mankind, backwards by about 30 years.

Well back to the drawing board then NASA, you could do worse than
resurect the Apollo program, at least that was a success.

So Bert was right all along, NASA killed seven astronauts, heads
must now roll.


But they won't of course.
I must say I was surprised when I learned of the conditions of the
mission: No way to transfer to a rescue vehicle, or the space
station, no way to repair tile damage when they knew it was a system
weakness, (they've lost tiles before, and regularly), no way to even
inspect the damage before re-entry. Of course you could argue that
with no way to repair it, what's the use of inspecting it (:-|), but
geeeezh! "This is not rocket science." (:-)) was aghast they they
hadn't been taking all these precautions *as a minimum!* What were
they thinking?? *Were* they thinking??
It's not only incompetence, it's incredible incompetence.
They need a new spacecraft for the shuttle role. They need a "ferris
wheel" style space station that simulates gravity, and while we're
dreaming, they need new safety personnel and regulations,... Well,
*more* than regulations, really; a whole new *safety culture* along
with some serious new blood at the highest levels.
Right now, I'd feel safer going up on a Soyuz capsule than anything
NASA has.

--
Regards
Fred

Remove FFFf to reply, please

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) writes:

Frog I would rather be proven wrong. NASA is only 50 miles from my
house. One of my best friends was an engineer there,and he clued me in
about the shuttles were to old to fly. He told me the shuttles tiles
coming off in every flight was kept "hush,hush" That was the reason he
and 19 others left 9 month's before the Columbia" tiles came off the
left wing. Nasa is using Styrofoam coming the main fuel tank and
hitting the left wing on take off. They don't have the brains to know
about relative motion in the same direction,and speed causes little
impact. Styrofoam light weight makes their coverup story as phony as can
be. The shuttle engineers were airplane engineers from So.
Calif.(Orange County) Pres. Reagan kicked out all the rocket engineers
of the days of Saturn V Air plane engineers liked the wings that the
shuttle had(Rube Goldberg engineering for rockets) It was the wings on
the shuttle that did these low brain engineers in. They should be tried
for murder. They won't be. They are through(good riddance) The shuttle
is through. Time to bring back the power,and all the good
engineering of the Saturn V. Go back to the moon. Chase comets,and do
things that excite our imagination. No more 36 years of going round,and
round (116 go around) We could have done those experiments going back
and forth to the moon. We could have had a base on both sides of the
moon,and both with a great telescope. We could have been moving always
forward,and now we are worse off than 36 years ago. Bert


I totaly agree Bert, I have not been reading the group for a few weeks
but when I saw this on the news last night I thought of you and how
right you had been all along.

Its a crying shame that things have sunk to such a low at NASA now,
I feel sorry for the genuine and responsible people there because they
will all get tarnished with this now. I expect a lot more will be leaving
NASA now so it will probably get worse until it gets better. They must
now surely turn this around and get something good to come out of it.

Yeah bring back Saturn V, or at least a new upto date version.


Who should head NASA now??, Bert gets my nomination. The peoples choice.
Give them hell Bert.

Fred and Frog You both are right. Over 36 years the Saturn V could have
evolved. I could have done a better job Frog if I ran NASA,for I would
never let anyone go into orbit on a shuttle that I would have any doubt
of being on. myself. Also I would only give the shuttle 5 years. That
to me is long enough. I would never build a space station. Is that going
to go round and round for the next 36 years? The best experiment the
three astronauts are doing up there is flushing those 32 million dollar
toilets. I would spend all that money NASA spent on flushing,and
used it for safety even if it meant the astronauts had to wear "depends"
I would rather wear depends for 7 days than be dead for eternity. NASA
does not blush. NASA does not lose sleep. NASA needs more money. The
head executives of NASA should stick their no brainer heads in those 32
million dollar toilets and flush. Bert

You All Will notice all those that took issue with with my posts in the
past are very silent now that the **** has hit the fan.(yes) Sad but
true. All my posting over the years went on deaf ears. Over the
years I tried to show the shuttle was a killing machine. Where are the
David's that defended it? They were the cowards than,and the cowards
now. BIG MOUTH"S WITH SMALL BRAINS. Bert

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) writes:

You All Will notice all those that took issue with with my posts in the
past are very silent now that the **** has hit the fan.(yes) Sad but
true. All my posting over the years went on deaf ears. Over the
years I tried to show the shuttle was a killing machine. Where are the
David's that defended it? They were the cowards than,and the cowards
now. BIG MOUTH"S WITH SMALL BRAINS. Bert


Good for you Bert, I know what you say is true because I often read
and post here and I know the flak you often recieved. Its funny cos
I was thinking it had gone all quiet here suddenly.

I just read this morning a little snippet in one of the papers
and I dont know how accurate it is but I think it sums up the
way NASA has evolved to its present state. Its suposedly
something John Glenn was reported to have once said.
Aparently when asked for his thoughts just befor take off
Glenn reportedly said 'How do you think you would feel on
top of two million parts built by the lowest bidder'

Wether true or not I think it applies even more so today.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

You All Will notice all those that took issue with with my posts in the
past are very silent now that the **** has hit the fan.(yes) Sad but
true. All my posting over the years went on deaf ears. Over the
years I tried to show the shuttle was a killing machine. Where are the
David's that defended it? They were the cowards than,and the cowards
now. BIG MOUTH"S WITH SMALL BRAINS. Bert

From what I gather the recent _Columbia_ report doesn't condemn the
shuttle design itself, but rather NASA's 'corporate culture'. Any
spacecraft (or other technology), no matter how well designed, has
the potential to be a "killing machine" when corners are cut with
regard to its safety in operation.

--
Odysseus

Odysseus writes:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

You All Will notice all those that took issue with with my posts in the
past are very silent now that the **** has hit the fan.(yes) Sad but
true. All my posting over the years went on deaf ears. Over the
years I tried to show the shuttle was a killing machine. Where are the
David's that defended it? They were the cowards than,and the cowards
now. BIG MOUTH"S WITH SMALL BRAINS. Bert

From what I gather the recent _Columbia_ report doesn't condemn the
shuttle design itself, but rather NASA's 'corporate culture'. Any
spacecraft (or other technology), no matter how well designed, has
the potential to be a "killing machine" when corners are cut with
regard to its safety in operation.

--
Odysseus

I saw an astronaut on one news report, that Fowl guy who has just
gone up, say exactly that it is a faulty design, ok he didnt say
so in so many words, afterall he still has his career to think of but
the implication was there alright.

Couple that with the bad manangement and you have your disaster waiting
to happen. Lets not forget here that the shuttle was touted as a resuable
craft, ******** was it, after every landing the damm thing practicaly
had to be stripped and rebuilt, the engines were only good for one
flight, they then had to be dismantled and rebuilt, the endless tiles
comming off, and all the faults and repairs we never got to hear about.

The shuttle was anything but a reusable craft, about the only thing
reusable was the shell and frame. Imagine the cost each time of
stripping down those engines and replacing them, the cost of constantly
repairing new tiles etc, the whole thing was a farce. It would have been
far cheaper to simply have launched satelites on a conventional rocket
but no NASA had to keep its prestige up no matter what the cost and
in the end the cost in lives was to be its downfall.

Anyway we dont need the shuttle to get people into space we have the
russians who can sucessfully do that and at much less cost and less risk
to life.

Frog all that you posted is the reason those 20 NASA engineers left. The
shuttles were to old to fly. Coming into the atmosphere every thing has
to be just right. No margin of error. When pipes show cracks "you do not
weld" you replace. Columbia had the cracked pipes. If they fly a
shuttle again the head of NASA(who ever he is?) will have to be on it.
Bert