This is what the winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Physics and a member of the Columbia disaster investigation committee says in a special interview with the Hidan website during his visit to Tel Aviv University
A few weeks ago Prof. Douglas Osheroff, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1996, and a member of the investigative committee of the Columbia disaster, was a guest in Israel. This week marked the 25th anniversary of the Challenger disaster and eight years of the Columbia disaster, and in a conversation with the science website Kosher Osheruf connected the two disasters, among other things thanks to the role he played in the commission of inquiry which was similar to the one played by Prof. Richard Feynman in the commission of inquiry into the Challenge disaster R, 17 years earlier.
What was your role in the commission of inquiry into the Columbia disaster?
My role was exactly like Richard Feynman's role in the Challenger Disaster Commission of Inquiry. Hal Gaiman wanted a Nobel Prize winner to serve on his committee as well as on the Rogers Committee.
NASA engineers are very smart people. The problem was management. The bureaucrats in the lower ranks of NASA were encouraged to solve problems they encountered and not to raise them up. In fact, Richard Feynman wrote a letter to the head of NASA's astronaut section after the Rogers report was published, thanking them and saying that the astronauts were the only ones who thought about it productively and worried about the future while management had the problem of explaining why the rubber O-rings leaked on every launch. They couldn't explain because they didn't know. They didn't want to know. Feynman was very right. And unfortunately this was not identified or published in the committee's report itself. If they had understood this, a second accident would not have occurred.
Why were Feynman's words ignored?
"Feynman wrote this as a personal letter to the director of the astronaut department and these things were not written in the report. I did not read the whole report but only parts of it. Sometimes it's a matter of how loud you say something. Unfortunately, as someone who saw the second accident, Linda Hamm was the manager of the task force. She is responsible for everything the astronauts do while in space. When she learned about the foam falling, she did everything to minimize the fear of danger to the astronauts' lives to the point where nothing was done."
"Even after the accident, NASA's senior management continued to claim that it was impossible that foam weighing so little, one-thirtieth the density of water, could damage the shuttle. But you have a block weighing two-thirds of a kilogram that hits the shuttle at the speed of a rifle bullet - 240 meters per second. How can you think that it will not cause damage, it is not difficult to calculate what the maximum power is. This is actually high school physics. Linda Hamm rejected the request of engineers who went to the Department of Defense and asked to photograph the shuttle wing using spy satellites. When they called to coordinate the shuttle flight in front of the intelligence satellites - which was a state secret kept from the Russians so they wouldn't know where the satellites were, Linda Hamm was upset that the engineers bypassed her and asked for outside help, exactly what NASA didn't want - they didn't want bad news to get out. outside. She rejected the demand. There was also another group that made an official request for a photograph, but when they saw that Linda rejected the first request, they thought it was impossible to do so and removed their request as well."
"Linda Hamm claimed that there was nothing to be done in any case, they assembled a team of engineers, on the fifth day of the problem and only then realized that there was a hole with a diameter of a square meter in the left wing of Columbia, what could they do to save the astronauts. They split into two groups. One claimed that it is possible to plug the hole or channel with bags of frozen water, which will absorb the energy of the heat that may penetrate inside. The other team realized that Atlantis was very close to launch, and without compromising the necessary safety procedures, they could launch Atlantis, dock it near Columbia, and transfer the astronauts. Although there were not enough chairs for everyone, they could keep the existing chairs and return. None of the solutions have been tried, because this is NASA's structure. The problem with knowing whether the management has learned the lesson is to wait, unfortunately, for the next accident.
Are they listening now?
"So far there has not been another accident. Now also an interesting period when a launch was delayed due to a problem with the external fuel tank. In fact, it is a connection between the liquid oxygen tank and the liquid hydrogen tank. There are STRINGERS among them whose job is to strengthen the connection, so that it will not be damaged by the vibrations and the forces during the passage through the atmosphere. It turned out that there were cracks in the aluminum cylinder surrounding the tank. They want to patch up the cracks but I think what they should do is just replace the external fuel tank. However, I don't think they have a replacement tank (in fact, the production of the tanks was done a long time in advance, and there is only one more ferry flight left whose tank is ready, the Endeavor). My personal feeling is that there is less risk in this malfunction compared to the malfunctions that caused the two accidents. Even if one of the stringers falls, there is no fear that there will be too great a compromise in safety that will cause, for example, the oxygen tank to fall. But this is a good test of whether NASA has improved."
Are the ferries dangerous and was the decision to stop flying on them a good one?
"The problem with the ferries is that they are very expensive launch vehicles. NASA 'sold' it to Congress by arguing that the launch would cost $180 per pound (about $400 per kilogram). Today it turns out to be $5,000 per pound (about $11 per kg). So it is an expensive launching tool. What's more, there are unnecessary risks in manned flight in a large launcher compared to flying in Soyuz capsules. Now they use Soyuz capsules to bring the astronauts back from the station. It is an inelegant solution but it is a solution that has stood the test of time. I believe this is a test of NASA's new approach to safety. Even if they think it won't cause another accident. They were wrong twice.
28 תגובות
The face on Mars is really optical nonsense and I understood that even at the age of 10.
Regarding buildings on the moon - you can see everything from Earth with a home telescope. I find it hard to believe that something on the moon can be hidden from the general public...
Regarding bacteria on Mars - what's the point of hiding? If NASA would open it up to the public then they could raise a lot more money. I don't see the internet as hiding germs.
Regarding the solar collectors I talked about - I believe there are more advanced civilizations and I believe it makes sense that they would use the sun as a green energy source.
Conspiracies are like believing in God. You can choose to believe and you can choose not to believe, but you probably won't be able to conclusively prove with your knowledge that there is no existence (of God/conspiracy).
Richard:
I do have a problem.
It is not specific to me but characterizes everyone who prefers to engage in serious things rather than nonsense.
I do not build my worldview according to propaganda films and I am not willing to do so.
The video of the skeptics is not edited.
Probably the problem is specific to you from Kal.
Even in science, informative information is conveyed through a lecture/video
https://www.hayadan.org.il/skeptics-in-pub-0611/
But it's not more honest to say - I'm just not interested in watching? (Although I have no idea what the claims and evidence are)
And if they mention the face on Mars
https://www.hayadan.org.il/mars-face-changed-0410061/
It has been unequivocally proven that this is a completely natural mountain, which only from a random angle and with the resolution of a Viking from the XNUMXs looks like a face.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/
http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html
And I have already said that there is no effective way to take seriously the delusional claims that are presented at a press conference or any other event in the form of a video.
Incidentally, a website unrelated to Hoagland and Johnston uploaded the entire press conference (Johnston also speaks)
And they did add a logo and opening music to YouTube.
Personally, I don't like it either - but at least you can see the entire press conference in its entirety.
Indeed - a typical conspiracy movie with all the typical music.
I have never heard scientific material presented with ambient music. For some reason - only the idiots think that with the help of music they will be more convincing.
If anyone is interested in hearing reasoned arguments against NASA on this matter in detail
I recommend watching Hoagland's 2007 press conference
National Press Club
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20_BlLegcLM
Shabbat Shalom.
I thought Proveda closed with the fall of the Soviet Union.
what a joke!
I suggest everyone to believe Pravda. They are much more reliable than all the scientists. Otherwise - how would the Soviet Union collapse?
By the way, what is proven optically/physically through the pictures
That's exactly what Ken Johnston, the former director of the photography division at NASA, stated
"NASA discovered artificial debris on the moon"
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/31-10-2007/99895-moon-0/
Richard:
It is possible to take seriously only your claims about what you understood and not claims about what I said.
In other words: I said a lot and you understood nothing.
Machal - you said a lot and said nothing.
Avi,
It's not a pixelation problem,
You see the prism and the color spectrum so beautifully.
And all the prisms in the different pictures are according to the direction of the sun at that time.
Can you show me examples of such light prisms as a result of ionized particles?
Besides - there is no logic in trying to deal with claims that appear in a confused video clip on the Internet.
When there is a written text, it is possible to refer to it and bring evidence of mistakes in it.
When there is some delusion that chatters without beginning and without end it is much more difficult.
Richard:
The scientists quoted on Wikipedia are – guess what? – Scientists!
I don't usually call anything that someone points out as nonsense.
If someone I trust has already checked the issue - I am satisfied with the check he did.
I have - broken pixels in the camera as a result of a momentary malfunction or the passage of ionized particles that are not missing on the moon in the absence of a radiation belt
Who wrote on Wikipedia? That is the question.
Wikipedia in terms that are not purely scientific (the atom, electron, etc.), is not an objective source of information.
This is known to everyone who tries to add linked information to a value that does not fit the agenda of the value editors/policemen.
I've read you write in the past that you believe in responding to the substance of the matter and not the person.
(If I spend time looking for the response I will find it)
If you want to be taken seriously - then respond to the substance of the matter.
If you say he manipulates the pictures, please here is a link to an original picture
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20426HR.jpg
Without changing anything - zoom in on the black sky above the leftmost hill -
There is a piece of prism there.
Do you have another explanation for the invention of a prism in the moon's sky? - I will be happy to hear.
See what they wrote about this funny Richard on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland
What did NASA even do on the moon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0StZZqrGCg
And the poet meant to write "to" and wrote "on" instead.
To Uri (1) In general, it is written that there are known problems in the management of NASA
The fate of the astronauts was sealed, that is: there were good odds
To prevent their death and the loss of "Columbia" if NASA was
An organization that functions in a responsible manner. Or as a recommendation (if you want):
Don't put your money and your life in NASA's hands - at least for now
The entire management was not replaced.
A fascinating man and a successful idea. Thanks!
Laurie,
With such a translation and pronunciation how will you understand...
There are no question marks where necessary and punctuation marks in the bases - a shame.
It is actually quite difficult (impossible) to calculate the maximum force. It is easy to calculate the momentum of the body.
I don't exactly understand what he said, but isn't it a huge scoop that the mission director knew there was a meter-sized hole in Colombia and they decided to do nothing? Or did I not understand?