Apparently with the new Obama administration version of NASA, failure IS an option.
One of the biggest space disasters ever, the Challenger disaster, was caused by FREEZING COLD WEATHER and idiotic management that ignored risks related to cold weather as warned by engineers.
I have a pretty hard time believing that about a degree of warming is going to cause all these woes. That and the fact that NASA has had a nearly 9 year hurricane free window in Florida to not worry about launches.
From EcoWatch:
NASA programs are being put in jeopardy by the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels, high temperatures and humidity, wind, heat waves and extreme storms, which could impact such high-profile NASA sites as its Kennedy Space CenterNASA identifies a number of potential risks, including damaged infrastructure, power failures that threaten communications systems, delayed launches, employee health and safety concerns, contamination and even threats to endangered species. It says it could expect the loss of land essential to launch operations, experience extensive downtime when its systems are disrupted, and asks “Given the already degraded condition of much of NASA’s infrastructure portfolio, how will NASA find the money to conduct necessary adaptations, repair failing infrastructure, and maintain mission tempo?”…The report is one of two dozen released by the federal government Friday that address what steps various government agencies are taking to address climate change.
They need to remember what Dr. Richard Feynman said about NASA’s failure to embrace what is really important:
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. – Feynmans closing words, Appendix F – Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
…One of the biggest space disasters ever, the Challenger disaster, was caused by FREEZING COLD WEATHER..
Didn’t you know? Global Warming causes freezing cold weather. It can also reach out to spacecraft on an Earth-Moon trajectory and blow up their oxygen tanks, and I’m pretty sure it was responsible for the incorrect calculation of the focal point if the Hubble Space Telescope…
How would a little warmer weather effect NASA’s primary mission as dictated by the President of Muslim outreach?
The true irony of the NASA statements is that both Shuttle failures can be traced to cold weather. Both were late January launches. Challenger was done in by the freezing outside temperature coupled with the cold air flowing down the external fuel tank. The Columbia breakup is related to a late January launch following cold and rainy weather that lead to ice chunks coming off the external fuel tanks and breaking the ceramic leading edge of the wing. The sensitivity of the shuttle configuration to cold makes understandable the Russians reluctance to man their own shuttle copy (Burian) when they launched it in Nov. of 1988.
Sorry, but it was not ice that hit the Columbia wing. It was a piece of the thermal insulation that jackets the fuel tank.
For Challenger see:
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch6.htm
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-evidence-reveals-fire-on-doomed-challenger39s-1602/
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1990-08-22/news/bent-out-of-shape/
For Columbia: Even though NASA probably knew that the shuttle had major fatal tile damage (because of all the telescopes available for observation, both commercial and classified), a reentry had to be attempted because no rescue mission had been set up in case of orbital stranding. So the options were to attempt a fatal re-entry or leave several dead astronauts in an orbital grave yard.
Even Chicken Little is embarrassed by this one. What is the average IQ of NASA employees?
“What is the average IQ of NASA employees”
I’ve met a few for a recent project.
My takeaway; Individually brilliant, collectively stupid. (BTW, they know it too)
That is the leveling effect of a beauracracy. Pitiable.
It was NASA’s turn after the Pentagon after all. Next up, the meat inspectors agency.
It’s lucky NASA was not around in the days of Columbus, they would never have put out to sea.
” ooh those waves look rough”
It’s an irony that NASA’s launches affect our climate more than our climate affects NASA’s launches.
+10!
The Vehicle Assembly Building is a piece of junk anyway, it’s built on a swamp that won’t support the weight of a CAT D7, let alone a 3 million kg Saturn Booster
I thought the threat to NASA space operations was the decline in engineering competence exasperated by their strategic shift to focus on non-science such as climate change alarmism and Muslim outreach.
Who will fund the NASA budget request?
(Fill in Appropriate Threatened Entity) programs are being put in jeopardy by the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels, high temperatures and humidity, wind, heat waves and extreme storms, which could impact such high-profile (Fill in Appropriate Threatened Entity) sites as its (Fill in Appropriate Threatened Entity).
There. Climate Form-Article. Now let’s reduce costs a bit more, shall we?
Education has been dumbed down since we were all in school.
That is the problem.
I note the Chinese and Russian space agencies have not been bleating about the weather.
This is not NASA’s fault, per se. It is the idiot POTUS and his band of ecozealot-fascists in the White House that is causing this idiocy at NASA.
Gotta not let disasters go to waste, the public attention span is fleeting. Two space-related failures in the past few days – quick, someone relate them to climate change!
Allow me to recommend the book Safe Is Not An Option by Rand Simberg. Failure was always an option, no matter what Gene Kranz said. http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Not-Option-Rand-Simberg/dp/0989135519
The NASA of Gene Krantz, Neil Armstrong et. all. is dead…
Does NASA even do space anymore? Okay, that is a bit extreme, but I am personally totally confused why we didn’t just push on to mars aggressively. And seriously, if a few degrees of warming can hinder space operations considering the extremes experienced when working in space, I can’t imagine we will be very successful anyway. A trip to mars for instance will need us to overcome variables much more extreme then the most extreme alarmist can muster for earth itself. So if NASA thinks will be such an impediment maybe we should just shut them down and save the money, or maybe think about who we have hired and who else might be able to do better.
I would like to see humans on Mars before I die but it seems likely to be the Chinese who will achieve that distinction. Perhaps NASA facilities could be sold to them to speed their ambitions since the US no longer seems to have any heart for such an undertaking.
I still remember clearly , as a youngster , staying up all night (Europe time) to watch the first moon landing as it happened . I thought then that it was the beginning of a Great Adventure , not realising that what I was witnessing was actually the end of one.
““Given the already degraded condition of much of NASA’s infrastructure portfolio, how will NASA find the money to conduct necessary adaptations, repair failing infrastructure, and maintain mission tempo?””
So the people who apparently were in charge while NASA’s “infrastructure portfolio degraded” are to be considered credible evaluators of any potential risks from climate change?
I am curious what percentage of their budget has been going to climate research verses infrastructure maintenance and upgrading.
“”Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions.”” http://ecowatch.com/board-directors/
I see, said the blind girl: You’ve got to got where the money is! “It is the nature of our adversarial legal system”!
What’s such an incredible shame is that Frank Bolden is a former astronaut. And yet, having been appointed by Prez Obama, he toes the Administration’s line when it comes to NASA’s purpose, goals, and how it deals with science–like, climate science.
Bolden’s name is Charles. On the subject of Mars, half-serious thought is being given to the idea of a manned, one-way flight. The cost of return is staggeringly high.
“even threats to endangered species” ??? Their rockets run on environmentally catastrophic and poisonous chemicals and fuels. Every launch spews out literally tonnes of poisonous fumes and residuals. And they worry that climate change COULD have threats to endangered species. Crazy stuff.
This is so sad. NASA has been on a decline for awhile now. Gone are the heady days of the the first man in space, the Appollo missions, first step on the moon, etc, now we have political gibberish; Muslim outreach, climate propaganda, lack of imagination and meaningful public aspirations. It is a shell of what it was, a stalled if not regressing space program.
Feyman?….ptuh!..
He ain’t no climate scientist…….I guess I should say I’m being sarcastic lest I be misunderstood.
On a genuinely serious note I find it sobering to visualise a comparison of the manner of the great man next to say that of Schmidt/Mann.
My sense is he would be deeply embarrassed.
To Jimbo:
You quoted the AP report, and then added:
“Was the foul weather a sunny, warm day? Tornadoes? Hurricanes? Frost?”
It need not even have been weather at the cape. I worked
launch support from 1988-1991, including for a number of shuttle missions.
The bird didn’t fly if the TAL sites (typically in Africa) had even broken
clouds; it was one of the criteria for launch.
TAL is Trans-Atlantic Abort. It’s the second of the possible abort options,
after RTLS (Return to Launch Site) abort profiles have been exceeded. When
the bird has gotten high enough and fast enough, all engines can fail and
she still can do a suborbital trajectory across the Atlantic and reach whichever
TAL site was designated for that mission. This happens not long after she drops
the SRBs–roughly 2 and 1/2 minutes. But, remember that the shuttle, on landing,
is coming in “dead stick”–it’s a glider, they have just one chance to land, and
they need sufficently clear weather and a clear runway at Banjul or Dakar or Rota
or Kano or wherever is designated. (Most of the missions I worked launch support
for, the TAL sites were in Africa. For some missions, TAL sites were in Europe.)
In fact, I remember hearing an argument over the communications loop between
the meteorologist at the TAL site and the flight director about the state of the clouds
at Dakar, with the meteorologist stating that what he was seeing was broken
clouds (no launch) while the flight director was saying that to him, over the TV,
it looked like scattered clouds (launch). I don’t recall which mission that was.