NASA: A Bumbling bureaucracy?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

With almost three years to fix foam from falling off booster rockets and striking the Shuttle (dooming the passengers inside) NASA failed (again) to use its millions and millions of dollars to fix a problem.

Today's New York Times reported that NASA actually did not test the foam covered tank during this time to see if the foam would be stable in launch conditions, saying "So the only tests of how the ramp material might hold up under the rigor of launching were the launchings themselves, with astronauts aboard." Despite Columbia breaking apart (really superheating from the inside out) NASA argued that "that the PAL ramp did not urgently require alteration."

(PAL ramp = protuberance air load ramp a portion of the fuel tank / rocket that is used to get the Shuttle into outer space)

NASA had improved how the foam was applied to the Shuttle - but these changes took effect after the Discovery tank was made. "But the tank that flew with the Discovery last week was made before the new procedures went into effect, and NASA stopped short of requiring that the ramps be redone, said a spokesman, Martin J. Jensen."

All of this despite a report after the last two tragedies that essentially said NASA had become a massive group think styled organization that has lost sight of any answers or questions that are not internal.

I have many questions:

1) Is this a good argument for privatization of a public industry?
2) Is it only lethargy and resignation that does not cause the American public to not implode when billions of taxpayers money go up in flames - repeatedly - and the SAME accident causing phenomena happens two times in a row (and countless other times that were night launches)
3) Is NASA dead on it's feet and waiting for the glue factory? Or will the resignation mentioned in #2 simply allow it exist forever - despite how many astronauts loose thier lives?

TTF

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 723 • Replies: 8

No top replies

wHATS THE big deal with people on space rides. If there was a coremission like to escape this planet because of an impendig collision with another big rock , OK. However, with all our abilities to remotely sense, why even consider people any more. Thats so 1930's

0 Replies

But, you see, when you put people in space (whether or not they return safely), it creates a diversion from other pesky news stories in a way that unmanned flights don't.

Argh, I'm too cynical. I need to go out and pet a puppy or something.

0 Replies

Oh please, NASA does not "kill astronauts." You wanna see how good NASA is? Compare how many people they've lost compared to the Soviet programs. They had rocket after rocket just blowing up on the launch pad. And a lot of their accident were repressed from the public at the time too.
Tragedies have happened and will happen in the future. It sucks, but people have to come to terms with that. NO sientific progress will ever be made without risks. Would people have ever found the New World if they'd sat in Europe thinking "hmmm those sea's seem rough, I think we'd better hang out here"? Launching spacecraft is so incrediably complex that there are bound to be accidents.

NASA is not some screw up entity sucking money like some people like to claim. Look at the Deep Impact and 2 Mars Rover missions. They were resounding sucesses, far exceeding expectations and mission objectives. NASA is definately not "dead on it's feet and waiting for the glue factory." That's such stupid ignorant statement.

I'm ******* sick of people with no technical or scientific knowledge writing editorials in newspapers and such claiming that they know all the answers on how to run this multi-billion dollar, super technical institution. Are you people aerospace engineers? This IS ******* rocket science. People can't come out and say "oh NASA's useless, they should have done this or that." Hindsight's 20/20.

0 Replies

astronauts know the risks and nobody is forcing them to do all the training to take those risks - death and accident are sad but they know they are part of the progress\evolution spaceflight.

0 Replies

Drake -

Easy man. There are plenty of decafinated beverages that taste just as good as thier cafinated counterparts. Wink

I think you are right - my wording is a little harsh like NASA is some force that deliberately killed Astronauts. I will edit the original post.

However, this post wasn't about how hard it is to get a rocket into space - it also wasn't about proving the rocket scientists inept at thier facts or figures - it was about an inability of NASA to address internal problems.

Here are two simple facts that allow this journalist to write this article. The foam that struck the leading edge of the wing of the Space Shuttle and brought it down 3 years ago was NOT addressed in the next three years. The scientists argued that there was no other way of doing this (foam on the ramp). Foam broke away AGAIN during the latest launch and could have caused the same problem that Discovery had.

This seems to lead to a community of people that cannot think outside of the box and when confronted with a failure cannot address it in ways that they do not already think.

Do you agree or disagree?

Husker -

If you read the article you will see that NASA never tested the foam on the tanks in a take off simulated environment. The Astronats are brave and understand the risk - they also have faith in scientists to be dillegent. However, when theonly data are the take off themselves - you seem to leave the realm of Astronauts enter the world of test subject.

The risks are not an issue - dillegence in the scientific process is.

TTF

0 Replies

The space industry will be privatized to some extent (See SpaceShipOne) but removing NASA as a public entity would be foolhardy at best.

There are some endeavors that goverments can take that are well worth the investment, and serve the public interest better than anything the private sector would do.

Leading space research and exploration is one of them. I'm quite probably one of a very small number of libertarians who thinks this way.

Sure, NASA has problems, and serious reform is needed to fix them. But scrap it? Hell no.

And I'm agreeing with you on the point about the foam. Still, they managed to be rather successful on Mars, no?

Am I the only one who finds it funny that NASA has been accused of thinking "inside the box"?

0 Replies

Well, NASA doesn't seem to be doing as well these days as they used to.

I'm a NASA fan, as well. There are a lot of good missions left ahead of them.

Just not a Space Shuttle fan. The thing was designed to return to orbit ONCE A WEEK. It is a massive failure.

If we had never had the Space Shuttle, I wonder what other designs would have come out? I agree with NASA's mission (hell, I think their budget should be raised x10) but they need to seriously re-examine this outdated piece of hardware that they rely upon so much, and the bueracracy involved with maintaining it....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

All the recent spectacular successes were with unmanned vehicles. The urgent need to put people in these things is , to me, a waste. I remember that the mission that started it all was stated by a "non rocket scientist" who laid out a national goal in 1962 , I was a kid watching Soupy when Kennedy came on.
Sending a Man to the moon and bringing him back home again" was ok then. The really important needs from space are first to explore, and exploit, and people will, until the moment when our interplanetrary capabilities catch up with our delivery systems, just be in the way.
The engineers, and scientists, for the next 30 or so years, should concentrate on unmanned research, even our AirForce is investing in UAVs , Only thenshould we start working on a techno advanced planet hopping vehicle. We are flying around in space with an EDSEL for Chrissakes and we are using fuel technology that was invented by the Chinese and perfected by Robert Goddard.

We will ultimately beat the "speed of light" barrier (Einstein was wrong about a lot of things), at that time intergalactic travel by humans may be revisited. Going out into space as a tourist will, for a long time be nothing more than a "Carnival Ride"

0 Replies

NASA: A Bumbling bureaucracy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know