Until recently, I was under the impression that the rocket scientists working for NASA had some common sense. I quickly changed my mind when I learned the space shuttle Discovery has been cleared for takeoff even though some officials are concerned about foam insulation damaging the shuttle during flight. It seems some people never learn.
I remember the Columbia tragedy like it was yesterday. I couldn't believe seven of our brave astronauts were literally minutes from landing, and they didn't make it because of damage caused by a piece of foam. I comforted myself with the thought that if NASA ever decided to launch another manned shuttle, that problem would certainly be corrected.
NASA did attempt to reduce the amount of foam on the fuel tanks of their shuttles after Columbia. Two years and millions of dollars later, it was announced that Discovery would be launched. Unfortunately, the efforts to reduce the insulation weren't enough, and large foam pieces still came off the tank and narrowly missed the shuttle. This time, NASA was lucky because the foam didn't cause any damage to the shuttle, and the landing was a success.
Now, Discovery is scheduled to launch July 1, even though there are concerns about - you guessed it - foam from the fuel tank hitting the shuttle and potentially causing damage. Engineers have shaved even more foam from the tank since the last launch, but there is still cause for concern.
According to a New York Times article, NASA's lead safety official and chief engineer both voted against launching Discovery because they were concerned about the "debris issue" the foam could cause. For some reason, their lack of confidence was totally disregarded, and the launch was not delayed. Michael D. Griffin, the administrator of NASA, had the final say in the decision because everyone couldn't agree. Griffin doesn't seem too worried about the foam issue even though it has been a major problem on the last two missions.
The lack of common sense doesn't end there, though. Apparently, Griffin wants to launch 16 or 17 more missions before 2010, and that's why he doesn't want to delay the launch of Discovery. According to Griffin, a delay now would add pressure to future flights and increase safety risks. That's right - it wouldn't be safe to delay now, according to Griffin.
Unless I'm missing something here, I think the head of NASA is justifying ignoring a safety risk in the present in an attempt to avoid safety risks in the future. I don't think Griffin will have to worry too much about future safety risks if the upcoming flight goes sour because of foam damaging the shuttle.
The last justification for keeping the launch date could be the worst of all. According to Griffin, if Discovery is damaged by foam during takeoff then all the astronauts have to do is fly to the International Space Station and wait. Then NASA will send another shuttle to pick up the stranded crew. Maybe NASA should fix the foam on the fuel tank and solve the problem before it gets to the point of disaster.
I'm no rocket scientist but I know it isn't wise to send a broken space shuttle out of the atmosphere. Until NASA ensures the foam debris won't cause any damage, Discovery should be considered broken. The real rocket scientists need to realize the only place for a broken shuttle is on the ground.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
