Nasa chiefs 'repeatedly ignored' safety warnings

[subgenius]

Peter Beaumont
Sunday February 2, 2003
The Observer

Fears of a catastrophic shuttle accident were raised last summer with the White House by a former Nasa engineer who pleaded for a presidential order to halt all further shuttle flights until safety issues had been addressed.
In a letter to the White House, Don Nelson, who served with Nasa for 36 years until he retired in 1999, wrote to President George W. Bush warning that his 'intervention' was necessary to 'prevent another catastrophic space shuttle accident'.
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,887236,00.html

Guess the bean-counter from OMB, Sean O'Keefe, appointed to head NASA will be doing the old ass covering big time.

"Sean O'Keefe earned his Bachelor of Arts in 1977 from Loyola University in New Orleans, Louisiana, and his Master of Public Administration degree in 1978 from The Maxwell School." (from NASA site)
Wow, he's got a master's degree!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Although, I would suspect there are folks like this in every industry, constantly warning of impending disaster. Sure, eventually something is going to happen, and then they can say they "told us".

[subgenius]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Although, I would suspect there are folks like this in every industry, constantly warning of impending disaster. Sure, eventually something is going to happen, and then they can say they "told us".
You are correct. That is true.
However, this was no ordinary "Chicken Little."

".....Don Nelson, who served with Nasa for 36 years until he retired in 1999.....
During his last 11 years at Nasa, Nelson served as a mission operations evaluator for proposed advanced space transportation projects. He was on the initial design team for the space shuttle. He participated in every shuttle upgrade until his retirement.

Listing a series of mishaps with shuttle missions since 1999, Nelson warned in his letter that Nasa management and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel have failed to respond to the growing warning signs of another shuttle accident. Since 1999 the vehicle had experienced a number of potentially disastrous problems: "
The list is specific and serious.
Absolutely too early to assess blame. There will be enough of that to go around.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius

You are correct. That is true.
However, this was no ordinary "Chicken Little."

".....Don Nelson, who served with Nasa for 36 years until he retired in 1999.....
During his last 11 years at Nasa, Nelson served as a mission operations evaluator for proposed advanced space transportation projects. He was on the initial design team for the space shuttle. He participated in every shuttle upgrade until his retirement.

Listing a series of mishaps with shuttle missions since 1999, Nelson warned in his letter that Nasa management and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel have failed to respond to the growing warning signs of another shuttle accident. Since 1999 the vehicle had experienced a number of potentially disastrous problems: "
The list is specific and serious.
Absolutely too early to assess blame. There will be enough of that to go around.

Just observing the delays made me think a disaster was pending. The fact that you have driven your car 150,000 miles tells me that you're about due for some sort of issue with the car. How many tapes can you watch in a vcr without issue? Don't know and can't predict it. But as time goes on, the chances become greater. 2 shuttle occurences in a span of about 17 years. Still safer than your tub, your car or your choice of airlines. **** happens.

[Reginald]

Its apparent that there were points (And please dont underestimate just how deeply I think the guys at NASA feel about this) where the answers given, although scientificaly sound, could have been misinterpreted.

For example, when asked about the damage that could have happened to the wing when hit by the debris from the fuel tank, the response boiled down to We all looked, discussed it and decided it was not a saftey issue.

I am in no doubt that at the time the "looking at it" was very stringent and carried out completely and thoroughly, using best science all the way through.

Likewise, when asked if pictures were taken or an EVA had been planned to examine to see if there was any damage. The answer was that the pictures they had taken in the past were not helpful so this time they didnt attempt that. Also that an EVA was not an option. Even given my understanding of these things, an understanding that I hope goes a little beyond the norm, I wondered why. People see shuttle astronauts out of the ship often.

The impression that could have come across was that if there was anything wrong, there was no options, and bring them home and hope all was well.

Again, I dont think this is the case, I think that if there was a serious suspicion that there could have been a problem with re-entry, that Nasa would have held the landing and found some working solution to getting the guys down again. Safely.

Sometimes, when scientists present the facts and figures, honestly and to the best of thier ability, the less scientific, sadly sometimes read more into it.

A tragedy, on many fronts alas.

[RandFan]

How many missions? How many miles? How many people have left the earths atmosphere to venture into a hostile environment and returned without burning up or crashing? How many times has one of hundreds of engineers and scientists sounded the alarm only to be ignored?

I have heard that there is a 1 in 78 chance of a disaster. If so then we have done well. Some have put the risk as low as 1 in 300 or more. Let's face it, traveling in our cars is risky. Of course we don't have hundreds of support personal servicing our car. Even so space travel is far riskier.

Of course we should investigate and if there is malfeasance or incompetence it should be dealt with. But we have a good record when it comes to space travel. Of course that depends on how you define good. If we continue to send humans in to space we will have to assume that the thousands perhaps millions of variables are going to catch up sooner or later.

[Samus]

NASA was started in 1958. Since then, we have had exactly three fatal accidents: Apollo I, which took three lives, Challenger, which took seven, and now another seven with Columbia.

That is 17 people over more than forty years. All things considered, that track record is quite impressive. While I do not wish to ever see an astronaut lost, look at the pioneering work done in manned space flight, and we've lost only 17 people.

There are always more safety precautions that can me taken, no one is arguing that. You can check and re-check, but the risk of disaster always remains.

And so we have seen, on a sad February morning, the latest of such disasters.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by subgenius

You are correct. That is true.
However, this was no ordinary "Chicken Little."

".....Don Nelson, who served with Nasa for 36 years until he retired in 1999.....
During his last 11 years at Nasa, Nelson served as a mission operations evaluator for proposed advanced space transportation projects. He was on the initial design team for the space shuttle. He participated in every shuttle upgrade until his retirement.

Listing a series of mishaps with shuttle missions since 1999, Nelson warned in his letter that Nasa management and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel have failed to respond to the growing warning signs of another shuttle accident. Since 1999 the vehicle had experienced a number of potentially disastrous problems: "
The list is specific and serious.
Absolutely too early to assess blame. There will be enough of that to go around.

I checked the link you provided. They did not list any potential safety flaws that he may have pointed out. They did list a lot of technical problems that they have had in the past, but each and everyone one was fixed before the flight took off again.

I don't see any specific problems that he knew about that he told them and they ignored.

They also talk a lot about the lack of safety upgrades. However, not having safety upgrades is not the same thing as unsafe (if it is, it means that they have always been flying unsafe).

Apparently, his "growing signs of another disaster" is that there have been a lot of small problems. It does not appear that any one of those problems was the cause of the disaster yesterday.

[John Harrison]

Likewise, when asked if pictures were taken or an EVA had been planned to examine to see if there was any damage. The answer was that the pictures they had taken in the past were not helpful so this time they didnt attempt that. Also that an EVA was not an option. Even given my understanding of these things, an understanding that I hope goes a little beyond the norm, I wondered why. People see shuttle astronauts out of the ship often.

They can't EVA outside of the payload bay, so there wasn't really any option to eyeball anything.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I checked the link you provided. They did not list any potential safety flaws that he may have pointed out.

I don't see any specific problems that he knew about that he told them and they ignored.

They also talk a lot about the lack of safety upgrades. However, not having safety upgrades is not the same thing as unsafe (if it is, it means that they have always been flying unsafe).

Apparently, his "growing signs of another disaster" is that there have been a lot of small problems. It does not appear that any one of those problems was the cause of the disaster yesterday.
One inside an organization can get a sense of how things are going.
His concerns focused on exactly the type of things (budgetary and ignoring the on-the-line people's feedback) that may have led to the recent disaster. He was not alone.
From the original story:
"Yesterday Nelson told The Observer that he feared the Columbia disaster was the culmination of 'disastrous mismanagement' by Nasa's most senior officials and would inevitably lead to the moratorium he was calling for.

'I became concerned about safety issues in Nasa after Challenger. I think what happened is that very slowly over the years Nasa's culture of safety became eroded.

'But when I tried to raise my concerns with Nasa's new administrator, I received two reprimands for not going through the proper channels, which discouraged other people from coming forward with their concerns. When it came to an argument between a middle-ranking engineer and the astronauts and administration, guess who won.

'One of my biggest complaints has been that we should have been looking for ways to develop crew escape modules, which Nasa has constantly rejected.'

His claims emerged against a background of growing concern over the management of safety issues by Nasa.

They followed similar warnings last April by the former chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory panel, Richard Bloomberg, who said: 'In all of the years of my involvement, I have never been as concerned for space shuttle safety as now.'

Bloomberg blamed the deferral or elimination of planned safety upgrades, a diminished workforce as a result of hiring freezes, and an ageing infrastructure for the advisory panel's findings.

His warning echoed earlier concern about key shuttle safety issues. In September 2001 at a Senate hearing into shuttle safety, senators and independent experts warned that budget and management problems were putting astronauts lives at risk. At the centre of concern were claims that a budget overspend of almost $5 billion (£3bn) had led to a culture in Nasa whereby senior managers treated shuttle safety upgrades as optional"

Putting a "bean counter" in charge (because of political connections instead of aerospace expertise) only exacerbated the problems.

[corplinx]

Some blabbermouth was on NBC tonight talking about the shuttle problems and his solution which was an escape module. Of course, the guy is a sour grapes and his module wouldnt have saved the crew of this accident.

[Rose]

From the start it's been fairly well known how dangerous it is to put a shuttle in orbit and bring it back down again. Complacency led to Challenger's loss, and it may turn out that that was the case on Columbia. But the evidence isn't in yet.

What it really boils down to is money. We're operating vehicles designed when Commodore 64s were the penultimate in home computers. No allowances(that I'm aware of) have ever been made to keep a "ready shuttle" in standby mode in the event of an orbital emergency. The International Space Station has no provisions at this point of being a refuge(yes, i know Columbia was unable to reach the Station). There are dozens of measures that could be taken to reduce the risks involved in shuttle flights. But because of the money factor, most will not be taken. And when(not if) we lose a third shuttle, I anticipate the end of our manned space program, if Columbia's loss doesn't bring that about this time. Bush's speech gave me a glimmer of hope, speaking as he did of continuing in space. But with budget constraints, I am not prepared to place my faith in either the executive or legislative branches coming through and funding our space programs adequately. My pessimistic side says that future civlilizations will mark us as the society that had the potential to grasp the stars and instead turned back to crawl in the mud.

[subgenius]

Rose:
"But with budget constraints, I am not prepared to place my faith in either the executive or legislative branches coming through and funding our space programs adequately."
------------------------------------------
Don't put bean counters (like Sean O'Keefe) in charge. Do it right or don't do it.:(
Long time ago someone said they wouldn't want to go up in a craft made by the lowest bidder.:eek:

[subgenius]

"Like the other shuttles Columbia had been flying for twice as long as its designers first envisaged. Some parts were made so long ago, in the early 1970s, that they were no longer available. Engineers said yesterday that they have had to turn to the internet auction site eBay for spare parts. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-564778,00.html

Huh?
:eek:

[subgenius]

Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, told CNN the administration had been delaying safety upgrades on the space shuttle.

"That is inexcusable," said Nelson, who once flew on the shuttle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16155-2003Feb2.html

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Troll


Just observing the delays made me think a disaster was pending. The fact that you have driven your car 150,000 miles tells me that you're about due for some sort of issue with the car. How many tapes can you watch in a vcr without issue? Don't know and can't predict it. But as time goes on, the chances become greater. 2 shuttle occurences in a span of about 17 years. Still safer than your tub, your car or your choice of airlines. **** happens.

The entire fleet of Shuttles were engineered with such exacting tolerances that each would be able to fly 100 missions.

Columbia broke up while concluding her 28th mission, if I'm not mistaken...

[svero]

Anyone who's interested in this should probably read the descriptions of the Challenger investigation as written by Feynman in his book "What do you care what other people think?"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393320928/qid=1044289540/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-2894938-1690324?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[subgenius]

here's some more news:

NASA Dismissed Advisers Who Warned About Safety
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and CARL HULSE


When an expert NASA panel warned last year that safety troubles loomed for the fleet of shuttles if the agency's budget was not increased, NASA removed five of the panel's nine members and two of its consultants. Some of them now say the agency was trying to suppress their criticisms.

A sixth member, a retired three-star admiral, Bernard M. Kauderer, was so upset at the firings that he quit the group, NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, a group of industry and academic experts charged with monitoring safety at the space agency.
..........................
..........................


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/03/national/03NASA.html

[Goshawk]

Eh, Subgenius, your Washington Post articles always want me to register before they'll let me read the article. :mad: Sneaky devils. I refuse to submit.

Could you maybe quote a paragraph or two from them so I can go look on GoogleNews to see if it's somewhere else?

Thanx.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Eh, Subgenius, your Washington Post articles always want me to register before they'll let me read the article. :mad: Sneaky devils. I refuse to submit.

Could you maybe quote a paragraph or two from them so I can go look on GoogleNews to see if it's somewhere else?

Thanx.
Its the NYT, not that other commie rag.

More from the article cited elsewhere (hey register, its free and not a bad source for a commie rag):

"The eight departed panel members and consultants had long experience with the shuttles' systems and their troubles. In interviews yesterday, some said NASA had developed an institutional myopia about the panel's warnings, advice and observations, however pointed.

The panel's most recent report, which came out last March and included analyses by the six departed members, warned that work on long-term shuttle safety "had deteriorated." Tight budgets, it said, were forcing an emphasis on short-term planning and adding to a backlog of planned improvements. The report called for sweeping change.

"I have never been as worried for space shuttle safety as I am right now," Dr. Richard D. Blomberg, the panel's chairman, told Congress in April. "All of my instincts suggest that the current approach is planting the seeds for future danger.""

Seems to me to be putting the cart after the barn door has closed (I like to mix my metaphors, I'm no rocket surgeon) to blame the enviro-commie insulation, since safety oversight should have overridden this, had the priorities been where they shoud have been.
I guess the enviro-commies are so powerful they even control the Bush administration as do the Matriarchal Totalitarians. Might be a good reason to vote for someone different next time.
(Edited to replace "elect" with "vote for.")

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/03/national/03NASA.html

[subgenius]

NASA Now Doubts Tank Foam Debris Doomed Columbia
By JOHN M. BRODER


OUSTON, Feb. 5 — NASA officials expressed doubt today that a piece of foam from the external fuel tank that struck the shuttle Columbia during its liftoff could have led to the destruction of the ship.
.........

One reason Mr. Dittemore cited for discounting the foam's impact was that every shuttle suffers some tile damage. He said that on average, 100 tiles were damaged on each flight, with 25 to 35 of the impacts larger than an inch across.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/national/nationalspecial/06XSHU.html

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Rose
There are dozens of measures that could be taken to reduce the risks involved in shuttle flights. But because of the money factor, most will not be taken. And when(not if) we lose a third shuttle, I anticipate the end of our manned space program, if Columbia's loss doesn't bring that about this time. Bush's speech gave me a glimmer of hope, speaking as he did of continuing in space. But with budget constraints, I am not prepared to place my faith in either the executive or legislative branches coming through and funding our space programs adequately. My pessimistic side says that future civlilizations will mark us as the society that had the potential to grasp the stars and instead turned back to crawl in the mud.

Greetings, Rose. I've never read your posts before, but I'm looking forward to seeing them in the future. Well said.

I have to agree, based partly on what I'm seeing on this site, but mainly what I'm reading elsewhere. Sadly, the cry is based on "We have so many problems here on Earth." True, we do. But let me discuss this for a moment.

Let's take homelessness: we could have conquered that years ago. That is really more a problem in America of the National Will. I can put in a few hours at a shelter, and there are ways we can work with people to help them get back on their feet. WE must all be willing to set aside prejudices, and be willing to open doors to people. Some businesses have, and have provided jobs to these people, and gotten them off the street once and for all. Other private organizations are doing the same thing. BUT, there's not sufficient will among enough Americans to bring an end to it. The Space Program has no bearing on it, and to use homelessness as a crutch is an excuse, nothing more.

As far as pollution goes, much of the research we've done in space has helped us work towards bringing about reductions in pollution. And, with work now being done on fuel cells, we could see an end to hydrocarbon emissions from private vehicles. Similar research is being conducted in space which could help bring about medical breakthroughs in AIDS (which covers a huge area; it's not just about AIDS...), cancer, and neurological research.

Many of the objections for continuing in space are really excuses. We are surrounded by Luddites who want nothing more than for us to remain in the mire. They think it keeps them in some degree of importance, when in reality, it marginalizes them even more than ever. And ultimately, it degrades the quality of life for all of us. For all the talk of the "Good Old Days," (and yes, I know this has been said before), I don't want to live in an age that lacks penicillin, the internet, and clean water. (In spite of the environmentalist cry, our water coming from the tap is cleaner than it was 50 years ago.) And while we could do more with unmanned probes, I look forward to actually getting the chance to go into space myself some day, and rather than being a witness to what we can do, I look forward to being a participant. And while I don't know what I'd do just yet, without people in space, there's no way to know what there is to do. We've only just put our feet on the ground in this corner of the woods; it would be a disgrace for us to tuck our tails between our legs and run home now.

[Ladewig]

One reason Mr. Dittemore cited for discounting the foam's impact was that every shuttle suffers some tile damage. He said that on average, 100 tiles were damaged on each flight, with 25 to 35 of the impacts larger than an inch across.


Today, I heard a radio personality say that the leading edges of the wings were not covered with tiles but instead were covered with reinforced carbon-carbon which is described on a NASA page. (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-tps.html#sts-rcc) I don't know what the chances are of this stuff failing, but it is located on the wing and it is a critical component of the thermal insulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penultimate means the next to last. The one before the ultimate one.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Today, I heard a radio personality say that the leading edges of the wings were not covered with tiles but instead were covered with reinforced carbon-carbon which is described on a NASA page. (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-tps.html#sts-rcc) I don't know what the chances are of this stuff failing, but it is located on the wing and it is a critical component of the thermal insulation.


MSNBC is reporting that an Air Force tracking camera in New Mexico took photos of Columbia a minute before breakup showing "heavy structural damage" where the front edge of the left wing meets the fuselage.

[subgenius]

"Space debris is a possibility that's being investigated," Nick Johnson, chief scientist and program manager for orbital debris at Johnson Space Center, said yesterday in an interview.

"We're actually very busy right now trying to work," added Mr. Johnson, who said he was participating in the shuttle investigation.

But debris impacts in orbit are not the only possible source of wing damage engineers are considering. Engineers studying the disaster say the new evidence, as tentative as it is, that physical damage to the left wing brought the orbiter down was also likely to revive a theory NASA had all but discarded only two days ago: that the craft was damaged on takeoff by a chunk of insulating foam that fell off its fuel tank.

And they cautioned that they had yet to rule out at least one other source of the damage: that some internal malfunction on Columbia itself led to mechanical problems with the wing.

Any of these three scenarios could result in the kind of major damage NASA officials say the evidence collected so far might indicate. But even if the damage was minor, the pressure and heat of re-entry might have been enough to turn a small injury into a lethal wound.

Experts say it is still too soon to concentrate on any of the possibilities to the exclusion of the others, or to rule any of them out, especially since the exquisitely complicated sensor data still shows only mild temperature increases in a wheel well and a series of sensors failing, one by one, in the aft areas of the left wing.
...
But the research council report asserted that the most dangerous aspect of the problem stemmed from a lack of knowledge of where the small but potentially deadly pieces of debris moved in their orbits.

So, the research council said, NASA should undertake a major effort to assess the risk from those nearly invisible projectiles.

"Until the magnitude of the threat — and the uncertainty of the threat assessment — are better known, program managers and mission planners will be forced to balance crew safety against cost and mission goals," the study said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/national/nationalspecial/08EVID.html

[Starshark]

Originally posted by corplinx
Some blabbermouth was on NBC tonight talking about the shuttle problems and his solution which was an escape module. Of course, the guy is a sour grapes and his module wouldnt have saved the crew of this accident.

Don't be stupid! They had at least five seconds from knowing something was up to getting into an escape module. I've seen tonnes of movies, and that's more than enough time to get away safely. In fact, they would have had two seconds for some witty dialogue, too!

I'm with the NBC MMQ. Escape modules are the solution.

[subgenius]

Columbia was worst shuttle in Nasa fleet
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 09/02/2003)


The space shuttle Columbia had by far the worst record of problems with its heat shield in the entire shuttle fleet, The Telegraph can reveal.

Analysis of Nasa's launch reports reveals that Columbia had a tenfold higher failure rate of its heat-resistant tiles. Significant tile damage was reported on eight out of its 28 missions - a rate of almost 30 per cent compared with three per cent for the other shuttles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/09/wshut09.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/02/09/ixnewstop.html
(free registration may be required to access)

[subgenius]

Report: Cutbacks might have endangered shuttle
NASA chief: Board will investigate points in newspaper article
Sunday, February 9, 2003 Posted: 6:15 PM EST (2315 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- NASA's chief said Sunday that the independent board probing the Columbia disaster will look into reports that cost cuts during the past decade might have endangered the space program and its astronauts.

An article in Sunday's editions of The New York Times chronicles years of deep budget cuts and layoffs of skilled NASA employees that could have compromised space endeavors.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/09/sprj.colu.wrap/index.html
(Not commie foam.)

[subgenius]

Amid Quest for a Safer Shuttle, Budget Fights and Policy Shifts
By DAVID BARSTOW and MICHAEL MOSS

HOUSTON, Feb. 8 — In July 1999, on a mission to deploy a powerful X-ray telescope, the space shuttle Columbia experienced several dangerous malfunctions.

A small pin broke loose on takeoff, rupturing three cooling tubes and causing the Columbia's main engines to shut down prematurely. This left the shuttle miles short of its intended orbit. In addition, a short circuit cut power to an engine controller; engineers would later attribute this to serious wiring problems that grounded the entire shuttle fleet for months.
The Columbia returned safely, and NASA spokesmen played down the severity of the problems, but in fact that Columbia mission marked an important moment of recognition for the space agency. In the months that followed, a broad range of experts, including many from inside NASA, arrived at an alarming consensus: Years of deep budget cuts in the shuttle program — cuts that had shed more than 10,000 engineers, technicians and quality control employees — were potentially imperiling the lives of astronauts.

.....

The troubled 1999 mission prompted the Clinton administration to change course and pump new money and employees into the shuttle program — only to see the Bush administration propose sharp cutbacks in spending on safety upgrades.

......
Yet less than a week later came Sept. 11, and with it new demands on the federal treasury. Soon after, Mr. Goldin resigned. His successor was Sean O'Keefe, who, as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, had spearheaded the Bush administration's efforts to rein in NASA's spending. A protégé of Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. O'Keefe has been called the "Grim Reaper of space budgets" by some aeronautics journalists, and shuttle employees naturally greeted his appointment with trepidation.

Mr. O'Keefe initially lived up to his billing. By April 2002, NASA had decided to cancel three planned safety upgrades, including a plan to switch the shuttle's auxiliary power unit from a highly flammable fuel to a safer electrical system. Officials said that project ran into serious technical problems, and its costs spiraled. As a result of the cancellations, the Bush administration proposed cutting some $530 million over six years from the budget for safety and performance upgrades to the shuttle; the money was no longer needed, officials said.

At a hearing that same month, the decision prompted bipartisan complaints. "This administration has got to get its act together in space," said Representative Rohrabacher, who presided over the hearing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/national/nationalspecial/09PRIV.html
(free registration may be required to access)

----
....reports that cost cuts during the past decade might have endangered the space program and its astronauts.
----


Looks like they might blame it on cost cuts instead of error in workmanship?

Here's a question: if there were cost cuts, why did they let the ship up?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
....reports that cost cuts during the past decade might have endangered the space program and its astronauts.
----


Looks like they might blame it on cost cuts instead of error in workmanship?

Here's a question: if there were cost cuts, why did they let the ship up?
Seems like cost cutting could lead to errors in workmanship. No?
No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition (or bad things to happen).

[subgenius]

Shuttle Testing Suggested Wings Were Vulnerable
By DAVID E. SANGER


ASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — Studies conducted by NASA over the last four years concluded that damage to the brittle, heat-shedding material on the leading edge of the space shuttle Columbia's wings posed one of the highest risks of a catastrophic accident.

The studies focused largely on the tremendous damage that could be caused in the unlikely event that a tiny meteoroid or other bit of orbital debris hit the leading edge of a wing, which is made of a lightweight material called reinforced carbon-carbon. That is still one of the theories about what might have happened to the Columbia eight days ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/national/nationalspecial/10SHUT.html