In Spite of Insulation Falling Off, Discovery Will Launch Today
Jul 04, 2006 09:16 Filed in: Science
The Associated Press ran a story
this morning on the planned launch of the space
shuttle Discovery in spite of insulation
having fallen off one of the solid fuel
boosters.
According to the article:
With insulation having recently fallen off a booster rocket, and the fact that the Columbia met disaster from a large piece of insulation in the past, it seems idiotic to this writer to launch the shuttle without making damn sure the insulation stays put. It's looking more and more that the initial decision to use solid-fuel booster rockets was an economic decision, rather than a scientific or engineering decision. Space flight on the cheap. We've already lost two crews of some of our finest people; it would not just be a tragedy if we lost this crew. It would be an outrage.
The idea that in case of damage to the space shuttle the crew could hang out in the space station for 81 days reeks of political motivation. There are plenty of things that could go wrong with the space shuttle during its flight over which we have no control, but insulation falling off is a hazard that we already know about and the fact that the piece in question weighed less than one-tenth of an ounce, while it might not affect the safety of the shuttle, is a sure indication that the insulation is susceptible to coming off the tanks during the flight.
Given the expertise of the NASA personnel involved, there is undoubtedly a high probability that the flight will go as planned. There was, however, a high probability that Challenger and Columbia would have successful flights, also.
Let us pray for the safety of the crew.
6/6/2006 Comment: The space shuttle made a successful takeoff and it appears that there is no damage to the spacecraft from falling insulation. That still does not alter the fact that NASA was rolling the dice with the lives of the crew at stake.
According to the article:
[NASA Administrator] Griffin decided two weeks ago that the shuttle should go into orbit as planned, despite the concerns of two top agency managers - the top safety officer and chief engineer - who wanted additional repairs to the foam insulation.But the two agency officials said the foam loss will not threaten the crew because NASA has a plan for the astronauts to move into the international space station if in-orbit inspections find serious damage to the spacecraft. The crew would await rescue 81 days later by a second space shuttle.
With insulation having recently fallen off a booster rocket, and the fact that the Columbia met disaster from a large piece of insulation in the past, it seems idiotic to this writer to launch the shuttle without making damn sure the insulation stays put. It's looking more and more that the initial decision to use solid-fuel booster rockets was an economic decision, rather than a scientific or engineering decision. Space flight on the cheap. We've already lost two crews of some of our finest people; it would not just be a tragedy if we lost this crew. It would be an outrage.
The idea that in case of damage to the space shuttle the crew could hang out in the space station for 81 days reeks of political motivation. There are plenty of things that could go wrong with the space shuttle during its flight over which we have no control, but insulation falling off is a hazard that we already know about and the fact that the piece in question weighed less than one-tenth of an ounce, while it might not affect the safety of the shuttle, is a sure indication that the insulation is susceptible to coming off the tanks during the flight.
Given the expertise of the NASA personnel involved, there is undoubtedly a high probability that the flight will go as planned. There was, however, a high probability that Challenger and Columbia would have successful flights, also.
Let us pray for the safety of the crew.
6/6/2006 Comment: The space shuttle made a successful takeoff and it appears that there is no damage to the spacecraft from falling insulation. That still does not alter the fact that NASA was rolling the dice with the lives of the crew at stake.
|