After the Challenger disaster, Congress assembled a team of people from a wide range of disciplines to figure out what went wrong. They understood that NASA would never tell them the truth, and as a result of bringing in outsiders they were able to quickly determine what went wrong.
NASA still won’t tell the truth, but Democrats will only listen to them about climate. Democrats refuse to listen to anyone who isn’t an insider profiting off the climate scam, and thus they keep the climate scam alive.
Republicans in the House need to assemble a team of experts from outside the climate community, and quit listening exclusively to the criminals who are pushing this scam.
“Republicans in the House need to assemble a team of experts from outside the climate community, and quit listening exclusively to the criminals who are pushing this scam.”
Yes, they really do need to. If they care about this nation, they WILL do so. If they don’t — well, that will tell us something important.
Interesting to choose the loss of the shuttles as examples. Both spacecraft were ultimately lost due to cold temperatures.
It was posted because of Richard Feynman who is quoted at the top of this blog. Also, faulty o-rings failed the challenger as a result of a lack of safety oversight from NASA. It was merely the cold weather that exposed the lack of oversight.
It’s more sinister than that. The o-rings had just been replaced by Morton-Thiokol because they contained . . . wait for it . . . asbestos. Operational capabilities had been changed.
Asbestosphobia did in the Challenger.
There seems to be evidence that the peeling insulation from the external fuel tank was a result of the same kind of thinking. The fuel tanks were originally cleaned and scrubbed with a rather toxic mix of chemicals to prepare them for the spray on insulation. The insulation bonded well to the tank. A decision was made to go to more environmentally friendly chemicals for preparing the tanks — after which the insulation stuck not quite so well, resulting in pieces sometime peeling off and striking the shuttle.
I guess you have to break a few astro-eggs to make an environmentally friendly omelet.
The o-rings had just been replaced by Morton-Thiokol because they contained . . . wait for it . . . asbestos.
Almost completely true. Read through to the end to find the complete answer …
This publication (Engineering Design, Planning, and Management by Hugh Jack) goes into a little more detail on the ‘asbestos putty’ used; it does not mention a change out of putty.
This publication (Degrees of Belief: Subjective Probability and Engineering Judgment
by Steven G. Vick) does mention changes that Morton Tiokol was making a change to the putty, but not simply because the EPA had banned the use of asbestos; amplification of a a thought: simplistic thinking seems to assume that the use of asbestos was used on account of simple ‘insulation’ properties and I’m going to counter that by asserting that the asbestos can be present for other ‘structural’ reasons such as changing the ‘flow’ or plasticity characteristics, since this putty was to act more as a high-temperature seal than as a simple ‘heat’ insulator.
This source says:
This document addresses ‘thermal insulation’ applications of materials, as opposed to sealing, as putty and O-rings provide:
as opposed to the use of putties in general:
From this document we find:
and
.
faulty o-rings failed the challenger as a result of a lack of safety oversight from NASA.
On that specific event it should be said that NASA management countermanded engineering input. Engineers gave the no-go signal on account of no experience with launches in that temperature profile (knowing the risk that non-pliable O-rings presented) BUT NASA management said “We are going to fly anyway.”
.
“Republicans in the House need to assemble a team of experts from outside the climate community, and quit listening exclusively to the criminals who are pushing this scam.”
Unfortunately, that would first require them to grow a pair :/
Three cheers for Feynmann
+1
His sister, Joan Feynman works for NASA. In the last paper I read by her, she had to use the CAGW get out of jail free card to get her paper published, but she still managed to get her knife in and twist it.
Nice connection. People generally have positive feelings about NASA and hence Hansen et al. but they don’t have positive thoughts about the shuttle disasters. This is a good way to get people to distrust the NASA climate catastrophists, as they should.
“Republicans in the House need to assemble a team of experts from outside the climate community, and quit listening exclusively to the criminals who are pushing this scam.”
Why on Earth would they do that? What’s in it for them? They benefit from the climate scam too. Their track record proves they will do as democrats do with the things they complain about, enjoy all the new powers and money when their people are in control.
Honestly, most seem too ignorant to even know there is a scam. Many seem to suspect it, but I’ve never seen any use facts (other than say the lack of warming) as counter. Or even worse, they quote a UN report. None mention the arctic ice level coming back, or the global ice level, or any of the other stats like hurricane landfalls, tornadoes, record highs or lows, etc. as are reported here.
Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe has a good grasp on the subject.
Reblogged this on Edonurwayup's Blog.
USA (like Australia) have two major political parties that are the same for all intents and purposes.
It is collectivists to the left, collectivists to the right and collectivists all around us.
People in power will always want more power. Politicians always become collectivists regardless of which “party” they “represent”.
This blog has a touching faith in the GOP which is really sad.
By the way, no one really cares about the ‘climate’, the play for power is #1 for everyone seeking power. Power corrupts.
Not me.
I believe in equality. I equally distrust the ReBOOBlicans and the Demi-RATS.
Explanation of why Corporate Cartels are pro-socialism: (Actually third way Corporatism)
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/forget-gen-x-now-its-generation-hot/#comment-14483
The Fabian founded London School of Economics used to have this up but have now removed it from their website. Anthony Giddens was president of LSE and LSE trains world leaders in politics, economics, finance and business.
A Third Way for the European Union I can not find an actual copy of the essay that was on the LSE website but this redirects to a video.
Another essay by Giddens. The Third Way Revisited
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are big fans of the Third Way. You can google and find the links.
More on third way from E.M. Smith (Chiefio)
re: emsnews says June 10, 2014 at 11:38 am
Truly tragic, a one-dimensional thinker; anything beyond the complexity of ‘running water’ must just simply amaze you, as if it were all magic, as all being seen for the first time appears as witnessed by the eyes and mind a three year old …
.
It’s not a faith many have, but a desperate HOPE in the one last barrier before the Dark Ages enfold us. It seems, more and more, that that hope is misplaced.
Unfortunately, the funding for climate alarmism is extremely large. Here’s an indication of the magnitude from NAS:
“The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) comprises thirteen federal research agencies. It has received approximately $2.5 billion in federal funding each year for the last three years, which it then distributes to its constituent agencies.”
http://www.nas.org/articles/short_circuiting_peer_review_in_climate_science
And the Republican-controlled House is not cutting back, despite criticisms:
“According to the 2010 Climate Assessment Report that the U.S. submitted to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), the USGCRP projects were “extensively reviewed by scientists, federal agency officials, stakeholders, and the general public.” But, as detailed in another ITSSD publication (and summarized by NAS), the peer review processes were compromised, flawed, not transparent, and potentially biased—despite the fact that federal laws and regulations require the EPA to back its findings with rigorous, peer-reviewed science.”
“Nevertheless, the federal government continues to fund these research projects, and Congress in the fiscal year 2015 Appropriations bill (H.R. 4660) approved funding increases for NSF ($233 million increase), NASA ($250 million increase), and NOAA ($10.5 million increase).”