jj@alice.UUCP (02/19/86)
Ok. Right after the disaster, I said that it was likely the end of NASA and the manned space program. Everybody (and I do NOT recall any dissenters) told me I was nuts. Today, in the paper, I see that Senator Hollings is calling the disaster "completely preventable". In the same article, I see that NASA and the congressional committee engaged in a shouting match, and that Morton-Thiokol is being investigated because two engineers have said that they advised against the launch, while the management finally OK'ed it. Another (failed bidder) firm says that the wrong rubber was used in the seals. Frankly, anyone who thinks NASA can live through this is pretty optomistic, I think, because the committee is doing their level best to ruin all of the people who have spent their life learning about the shuttle, and who know how to make it work. Certainly, it shouldn't have gone up in RETROSPECT, but as we all know (and some senators seem to take deliberate, hostile, advantage of) hindsight is much clearer than foresight. Of course, any engineer who says that "I think it should have gone up" will be ruined, if not by the Senate, by the publicity or the industry, so NASA's death is assured. Start writing, you complacent twits! You can call your local league of women voters to find out who to write to. I suggest both Senators, your Rep, Ernest Hollings (Sen-D-S.C.), Donald Riegle (D-MIch, Senate), and Albert Gore, Jr, (Sen-D-Tenn) for starters. It's probably too late, though. -- TEDDY BEARS GET HUNGRY, THEY NEED THEIR MCVITIES TODAY! "Heaven please, send all mankind, Understanding, and peace of mind..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/21/86)
In article <4998@alice.uUCp> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >Ok. Right after the disaster, I said that it was likely the end >of NASA and the manned space program. Everybody (and I do NOT >recall any dissenters) told me I was nuts. >Today, in the paper, I see that Senator Hollings is calling the >disaster "completely preventable". In the same article, I see that >NASA and the congressional committee engaged in a shouting match, >and that Morton-Thiokol is being investigated because two engineers >have said that they advised against the launch, while the management >finally OK'ed it. >Frankly, anyone who thinks NASA can live through this is pretty >optomistic, I think, because the committee is doing their level best >to ruin all of the people who have spent their life learning about >the shuttle, and who know how to make it work. My, aren't WE pessimistic today. Assuming for the moment that it becomes clear that NASA went ahead and launched in spite of all advice, they appropriate parties NEED to be yelled at. So far I get the distinct impression that some NASA bigwigs, after consulting with the experts in the field who told them not to launch, went ahead and did so anyway. Frankly, if NASA is going to be allowed to continue to operate in that fashion, we would be better off without it. I don't think that this examination justifies the conclusion proposed above, however. I haven't heard any senators saying "Shut down the space program". One problem seems to have been forgotten in all this. Suppose that it is determined that it was too cold to launch. Doesn't this mean that winter launches will have to be given up? It doesn't get that cold in Florida all the time, but I suspect it gets that cold often enough to cause delays. I suspect, however, that the SRB joints are going to be redesigned anyway. C. Wingate
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (03/03/86)
In article <3305@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >One problem seems to have been forgotten in all this. Suppose that it is >determined that it was too cold to launch. Doesn't this mean that winter >launches will have to be given up? It doesn't get that cold in Florida all >the time, but I suspect it gets that cold often enough to cause delays. The Vandenberg launch site has jet engine heaters to keep the Shuttle and Roman candles warm - high-tech smudge pots in essence. Due to budget constraints etc., they were omitted from the Florida launch sites.