 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / January 2006Challenger disaster and outlawing asbestos -- the myth
In doing my research I found a thoughtful treatment of the question of whether outlawing asbestos caused the Challenger disaster. See http://info-pollution.com/challenger.htm > In doing my research I found a thoughtful treatment > of the question of whether outlawing asbestos > caused the Challenger disaster. > > See http://info-pollution.com/challenger.htm Intereresting. Launching when ther ambient temp is too low will still cause problems.  SignatureJulian Bordas Rockets should land on their tails as God and Heinlein intended Jim Oberg, Asbestos is actually less dangerous to humanity anf the environment than the Owens Corning as well as the many other birth to grave alternatives, and a similar argument can be made on behalf of R12 freon. However, at the time the likes of composite basalt and metallic fibers was certainly worth looking into. Of what was utilized instead of asbestos did in fact kill those unfortunate astronauts. Using expendable composite SRBs or far better yet, using ther much lighter inert mass of what the LRB alternatives that existed at the time would have been a win-win all the way around. Therefore, it's time to re-focus upon the H2O2/RP-1 or better yet, upon the H2O2/C3H4O LRB/LRM alternatives that's kg/kg worth 50% more payload than any reusable SRBs, as still offering a good 25% better off payload capability than most any disposible SRBs/SRMs. At least that's the current SWAG of what I'm pulling from this following link. This is what Steven S. Pietrobon and his friend Linder Metts have had to contribute: High Density Liquid Rocket Boosters for the Space Shuttle http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf The LRB has the same propellant mass as the shuttle SRB of 501.8t Computer simulations indicate that payload mass can be increased by a third from 24,950 kg to 33,140 kg for a 28.45°, 203.7 km circular orbit. The HTML (no copy) version of the abovehttp://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:d6RJz_mJX0gJ:www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf+SRB+1000+kg&hl=en Space Shuttle Simulation Program http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/sim/ If mere replacement of the SRBs with the much less inert mass of these LRBs of H2O2/Kero or I'm assuming RP-1 is what's good enough for such a conservative 33% boost in payload, then without question the H2O2/C3H4O should become worthy for nearly a 50% boost in LEO payload, and/or achieving the same payload at roughly half the LRB mass, by way of offering far better then a LOX/RP-1 match for achieving the maximum 1st stage velocity and altitude, whereas considerably less inert massive, and even remaining sufficiently exhaust velocity suitable for a 2nd stage core application seems worth our looking into. Sorry for all of my usual confusing words plus whatever's math that's not always correct, or that of my interpretations of what's most important isn't the least bit improtant to those that already seem to know all there is to know. As I manage to learn more on this typically need-to-know basis, at least I'll share without ulterior motives or the sorts of hidden agendas that the vast majority of Usenet rusemasters seem to be continually involved with. - Brad Guth > Of what was utilized instead of asbestos did in fact kill those > unfortunate astronauts. > > [snip a lot of stuff about alternative propulsion possibilities] They weren't killed by asbestos or the lack thereof. A problem was detected in the O-rings on several launches prior to 51L. That problem was not solved before launch. A faulty decision was made to press on to launch despite the fact that there evidence of a serious problem that hadn't been solved. They were launching with some unknowns, and instead of deciding to stay on the ground until they could prove it was safe to fly, they decided to press ahead with launch until they could prove it was unsafe. EVERY launch technology has potential problem areas. The details have to be handled exactly right. Problems have to be investigated and solved. You can certainly propose alternative technologies that would have avoided the specific scenario of 51-L. Goodness, if the launch window had been late in the afternoon after things warmed up, 51-L would have been successful. But with the same management structure and decision policy had been in effect, given enough time, there would eventually have been a disaster. Different in its specific details, yes. In its results, not very. Columbia is evidence of that. The SRB field joints are completely blameless in the Columbia tragedy. Asbestos putty had nothing to do with it. The engineers were able to work within more serious asbestos constraints than existed in 1986, and yet they still produced a redesigned SRB that functioned flawlessly for lots of flights, and I expect will never cause another problem. That specific fix wasn't enough to save Columbia. The similarity is the attitude of ignoring a problem, or using the fact that they got away with an out-of-spec condition on a prior flight as evidence that they should be able to get away with it in the future. That attitude and decision-making strategy is what kills. And given enough time, it'll kill with any launch technology. --Rich topic: Challenger disaster and outlawing asbestos -- the myth >rcoch; Columbia is evidence of that. The SRB field joints are >completely blameless in the Columbia tragedy. OK Mr, rcoch (aka save thy brown-nosed butt rusemaster), Apparently this is another Usenet word game of your having implanted/switched the Columbia fiasco for the Challenger, and somehow in that way clearing the entire asbestos/O-ring matter, because therefore it supposedly never actually happened because of any removal of asbestos and/or via any subsequent replacement by an inferior product that simply failed every test, including having failed the real thing. Let me get this into perspective. With your best straight face and extremely brown nose none the less, you're saying there was no such O-ring packing substance issues, nor of any such asbestos formulated putty associated with those SRB O-rings that made any measurable difference whatsoever, with or without asbestos? http://info-pollution.com/challenger.htm "Because of an EPA ban on the use of asbestos, a non-asbestos containing putty was substituted which didn't have the insulating fire-retardant powers of asbestos." "The putty protecting the critical O-rings in the Challenger's two booster engines against the fiery rocket exhaust had been failing as far back as 1981 because of a lack of effective asbestos insulation." http://brian.carnell.com/3334 "What prevented the blow-bys from advancing was the asbestos sealant. It is almost as though the pre-Challenger shuttles were held together by a kind of garish and toxic chewing gum... That's the level of safety NASA promoted pre-Challenger." And such listings seem to go on and on, as most often having additional links within that seemingly go on and on as to specifically addressing the putty failure that was specifically due to the exclusion of asbestos. In other words (as a question); you're going to stick with that pathetic LLPOF story that there was nothing of putty that was important enough as to backing up or otherwise packing within, around and between the "O-rings" per SRB joint? Just for my being absolutely certain of what you posted was for real, and I'm asking this as a final question; As per what your flapping butt-cheeks are telling us, is that there never was an asbestos associated factor with such O-ring failures? Exactly where's the "myth" part of this infomercial (aka NASA damage control) contribution of your's? - Brad Guth > topic: Challenger disaster and outlawing asbestos -- the myth > >rcoch; Columbia is evidence of that. The SRB field joints are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > product that simply failed every test, including having failed the real > thing. It wasn't the putty that caused the burn through as I remember the issue. The putty was supposed to prevent the gasses from getting to the o-ring, but if it did get past the putty, the oring was supposed to then pressurize and seal tight. But the oring couldn't seal because at launch the joint rotated and opened up, preventing pressure from building against the oring and instead just burning it. And the sealing of the oring lessened with lower temperature. The oring was still the primary seal, not the putty. And I doubt it was the characteristics of the putty that allowed gas to get past it, if the joint is flexing during launch it's not going to seal well. > Let me get this into perspective. With your best straight face and > extremely brown nose none the less, you're saying there was no such [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > - > Brad Guth Sorry, but yet another good save thy butt try by "jonathan" (aka Usenet rusemaster wizard of disinformation infomercials). How about your explaining TWA flight-800 using that same brown-nosed phony baloney conditional physics and soft-science? >And I doubt it was the characteristics of the putty >that allowed gas to get past it, if the joint is >flexing during launch it's not going to seal well. Thus is exactly why you'll need a good and reliably proven putty. BTW; the replacement putty failed to insure not one but two O-rings. It's called a big-a.s MF MISTAKE that became a wee bit lethal, and billions upon billions spendy as all get-out. - Brad Guth > Sorry, but yet another good save thy butt try by "jonathan" (aka Usenet > rusemaster wizard of disinformation infomercials). > > How about your explaining TWA flight-800 using that same brown-nosed > phony baloney conditional physics and soft-science? Let's see, a hot near empty fuel tank full of wires with degraded shielding. Wiring that had been deemed unsafe and upgraded in most other jets. And as it climbs the O2 does what, it get's thinner so the mix gets richer. Hot rich vapor and sparks, gee, I wonder why it exploded? But I always love a good conspiracy theory, so I'll look forward to your response. > >And I doubt it was the characteristics of the putty > >that allowed gas to get past it, if the joint is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's called a big-a.s MF MISTAKE that became a wee bit lethal, and > billions upon billions spendy as all get-out. So the orings are a backup to the putty? Is that what you're saying? > - > Brad Guth Speaking of TWA flight-800 >Let's see, a hot near empty fuel tank full of wires with degraded >shielding. Wiring that had been deemed unsafe and upgraded in most >other jets. And as it climbs the O2 does what, it get's thinner so >the mix gets richer. Hot rich vapor and sparks, gee, I wonder >why it exploded? Once again, it's clear that you're into doing your usual rusemaster thing at the demise of so many innocent. Hot fuel at best could only burn extremely rich if artificially given sufficient atmosphere. Every conceivable effort under much greater O2 conditions was attempted and summarily failed at artificially igniting that hot fuel. Why are you still in total denial, and into excluding evidence? Why are you having to use those conditional laws of physics? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/PHOTOS.html If not the previous "TWA/PHOTOS.html", obviously something like the following had to have been in pursuit of that drone. Take a look-see at this: Raytheon FIM-92 Stinger / Stinger missile's kinematic range of about 8000 m (26000 ft). http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html Notice in their launch "fim-92a" image as to how nearly invisible the rocket exhaust is, as representing such a nearly clean and thus efficient energy burn, that which only the upper atmospheric affects associated with such a 2+ Mach velocity of delivery might have created as a visual impression of any sort of deployed rocket trail that may have been intended for taking out a specific target drone. Of course, we've all know that government(s) (local, state and federal, aka DoD and so forth) are made up of humans that have been well known for their having and acting upon ulterior motives and hidden agendas. However, not only have they made their fair share of mistakes but lo and behold, it seems they're otherwise good at following orders without a stitch of remorse, or else. One of many interesting reports: CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS IS A LIE? I CAN'T http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/03.html Somewhere I have stashed away several other reports on the "wrong target" aspects. Thus perhaps no accident, just wrong aircraft. TWA 800 wrong target, and CO2 fuel tank flooding http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.libertarian/browse_frm/thread/a30dc b71ccdc857f/0e19f722faebfaa0?lnk=st&q=wrong+target+twa+flight-800&rnum=1#0e19f72 2faebfaa0 BTW; you'd best get rid of your car, SUV and truck because, each and every one of those have their fuel passing directly through the spark generating fuel-pump motor. Fortunately, even at below sealevel (thus greater O2) and just as extremely hot if not hotter, the regular laws of physics prevents any fuel-pump related sparks from igniting the fuel, which even if it could be ignited would have only burned extremely rich, if at all, much less exploded. - Brad Guth > Speaking of TWA flight-800 > >Let's see, a hot near empty fuel tank full of wires with degraded [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Why are you still in total denial, and into excluding evidence? You're not thinking clearly. As the plane climbs the fuel mix would steadily change, so that a 'good enough' mixture is almost assured of happening. And a stinger...pahlease. You'd have to be almost directly underneath the plane to hit it with a shoulder fired missile. And just off the NY coast at night, a hundred thousand people would've seen it. > Why are you having to use those conditional laws of physics? > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > target" aspects. Thus perhaps no accident, just wrong aircraft. > TWA 800 wrong target, and CO2 fuel tank flooding http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.libertarian/browse_frm/thread/a30dc b71ccdc857f/0e19f722faebfaa0?lnk=st&q=wrong+target+twa+flight-800&rnum=1#0e19f72 2faebfaa0 > BTW; you'd best get rid of your car, SUV and truck because, each and > every one of those have their fuel passing directly through the spark [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > - > Brad Guth jonathan, OK, keep using your conditional laws of physics, exclude all of the highly qualified witnesses, exclude the actual hot tank testing with hot fuel that couldn't even be forced into exploding, exclude the radar images, exclude the report from one of the many submarines that quickly left the crash site, exclude the photographic information as to the target drone or weapon capable delivery drone that WAS in the very same air-space, and as for good measure you must further exclude upon the smart capability of the stinger or of any other similar surface to air methods that did exist and in fact had the necessary range and capability of creating the necessary shock-wave that would have easily brought down such an aircraft, even if it was the wrong one. Keep believing that your born again pagan government never makes a mistake, nor have they ever tried to take out those it didn't like at any cost. Denial is certainly a wonderful thing, especially warm and fuzzy whenever you need to avoid any chance of remorse sneaking in the back door, such as for all of those phony baloney WMD that apparently only our resident warlord(GW Bush) could see, whereas all the sudden there's not one other soul that'll claim to having identified such before our justified war on Muslims that were obviously guilty of sitting directly on top of our oil. - Brad Guth |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.