Veteran NASA Engineer Quits Five Days Before Launch

Whether it’s the pre 9/11 foul ups, the Katrina fiasco, or fatal shuttle launches, the real responsibility lies with the unseen and unnamed government functionaries that are above punishment and beyond justice.

An interesting story! Given the history of politicization and short-cutting at NASA, I am not surprised. When a 30-year vet isn’t happy with the risk, the risk should be reconsidered. Sadly, the squeaky wheels have been right more often than they should have been.

Extreme courage. We need more like him in our political arena – willing to stand up and fight for what is right!! Thank you for publishing this article.

Extreme courage. We need more like him in our political arena – willing to stand up and fight for what is right!! Thank you for publishing this article.

I’m behind you Mr. Camarda!
One Hundred Percent! Why don’t the powers that be put their owns butts on that candle and fire away.
What have they got to lose except their lives!

the gentleman is right; we need to have safety before any operation. for, he is given no respect; also he is fired. this is the mixture of politics and the common man.

Mr. Camarda is a brave man. To me, the real heroes are the ones who speak their truth. Unfortunately, they have a special word to describe such a person–a whistle blower. When is that gonna change?

The foam is needed during ascent to protect the ET from aerodynamic heating. I’ve seen onboard videos of Delta launches that show the insulation on the top of the SRBs actually chars from this heating.
The same happens to the ET during a shuttle launch. Look at the photos of the jettisoned ET taken during the last mission and you’ll see a lot of blackened areas. A few are from the SRB separation motor plumes, but not all of them are.
The real problem here is not so much unnamed government functionaries, but a self-perpetuating institution that insists on sending people into low earth orbit again and again for no particular reason.
All real space exploration is currently being done by robots. Highly successful examples include Cassini and the Mars rovers. Given physics and present-day technology, this will remain so for the forseeable future.
Unlike the manned space program, robots are actually exploring the solar system. And they’re doing it cheaply and reliably, without risking human lives. Meanwhile, the shuttle and space station consume an ever-increasing majority of NASA’s budget, often at the expense of highly worthwhile robotic missions, and they produce hardly anything in return.
Actually, I take that back. The shuttle *does* produce something: a stream of dead astronauts who can be used to name planetary features discovered by the robotic missions.

The shuttle originally was designed as a small fighter jet sized return capsule. then it was decided to make a 1/2 ton truck out of it. Following was making it into a intergalactic freight train.
What is sad is its entire computer flight system is so antiquated kids laptops make it seem obsolete. And its systems are so redundant, to prevent failures, it became more bloated.
then pork began to work its magic, and funds were diverted all over for testing this and that.
Now the basics of this ship are sound… Make a 1/8 model of this for recovery of crews and some equipment. house it in a sealed nose cone. leave All the Metal in orbit for reuse, including using enough fuel to bring the boster tanks along.
Make Couplers to hook the booster tanks together, for storage, or future use.
Nasa is suffering from oversafety disease. Any pilot or crewman killed will have 20 waiting for the next ride, they all know and accept the risks. the original premise should have been implemented as drawn

I’m a 34 year space kid raised in Nassau Bay, Texas who now lives in California. I admire the community of Clear Lake who ultimately support NASA.
Our need to please an overly controlling political body has left us forgetting the true mission of NASA. To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.
To advance human exploration, use, and development of space.
To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies.
I’m happy to read someone hasn’t lost this focus even at the expense of one’s job.

While I most certainly applaud Mr. Camarda (WAY TO GO !!!!!); I must also regocnize the inherit dangers of any exploration into the unknown. While it is true we spend billions on our desire to “see what’s out there” and our own cosmic house is in sad disrepair, (to say the least, the Space Program is a vital expression of our belief in ourselves. It is this very refusal to turn our backs on the future, or what we know the future can be, that has driven our Human Family to survive against all odds. ( And those odds have been pretty damn stiff, considering the last century). True, we have been responsible for our failures to heed the warning signs, but we have also been willing to take the risks necessary to correct the mistakes, regardless of the cost, so that The Mission can go on. More lives will be lost in this effort to explore our celestial neighborhood, but it will because of the Charlie Camarda’s of this world that we will more than likely suceed in spite of ourselves. The future has always had one hell of a price tag, we just have to be willing to pay it.

To be human is to explore. There would not be a “United States of America” if it weren’t for a few courageous individuals who dared to venture into the unknown. Every Astronaut, Cosmonaut, and Taikonaut knows the risks before they step into a spacecraft. We have become a nation of wimps who have lost our edge.

I have not kept track of NASA closely for the past of my 36 years, but I do believe that the space program might be a waste of money. We have enough problem on earth, especially our own nation, that would need all the money we can use. For example, to help our poor and homeless, to help border police, to keep Social Security strong, to invest study for cure, fighting diease, and rehabiltion, set up a watch dog for corporation behavior like Enron, etc. Or better yet, set up a national health care for all working families. We already spend billions of dollars for aids for countries that really don’t care about us that blows our defict into space! Our space shuttle will not solve these. We will not going to set up colonies on the moon or mars anytime soon. We will not be able to find another planet that is suitable for human to live or bringing back more oil! Our sun won’t fry our planet for another million or even billion years before we need to be transported to another planet. We already spend billions of our hard working tax dollars to countries who does not like us. Did every Space Shuttle mission help us in after every time they went up 200 miles above earth? I don’t know much about you, Mr. Camarda, but your act does show that we really don’t need NASA with our taxpayer money. If NASA thought otherwise, go see Bill Gates, he just got 40 billions more!

The space shuttle missions are not to find aliens or another habitat or even for life. The space program is a military operation. The money will flow becuase we cannot afford to let ANYONE else have command of satellites and mirrors reflecting everything we do, and capturing on tape everything we say. Astronaunts go up there to build surveillance equipment and build warheads that can be launched. The future of war is distant, with unmanned drones and beams from space. So no, money will always flow into NASA. And the astronauants who die are but soldiers dying for their country, whether they know it or not.

Phil Karn says: Actually, I take that back. The shuttle *does* produce something: a stream of dead astronauts who can be used to name planetary features discovered by the robotic missions.
Whoa, wait a minute! A “stream of dead astronauts?” In the 25 years or so of shuttle flight, there have been exactly TWO shuttle accidents that cost lives. I would hardly call that a stream of dead astronauts. Yes, these two accidents were tragic and avoidable. But to diss the space program because of this is just dead wrong.
I would suggest to those people that they read Gene Krantz’s book Failure is not an Option. You will be amazed at what NASA accomplished in six short years. This is the story of the creative, innovative folks at NASA who overcame extreme odds to put men on the moon. Because of them, we have calculators and all the great electronic toys that are on the market today. If President Kennedy had not challenged us to reach the moon by the end of the 60′s, I don’t believe that we would have as many of the cool things we have today.
To the people who would love to see NASA go away, well, you go away. The dedicated engineers, astronauts, and all the other support personnel are striving to learn about our universe. In return, they have given us technology and a standard to strive for. This is what the shuttle launches are for. With each exploration, we learn more about space and our planet. And just maybe, someday, it will make us better people also.

It amazes me that the guys who end up taking all the risk have no say in what they are going to be up to,While the guys who would be on their butts do not or seemingly do not want to waste time sending these guys to their deaths on the guise of making their safety and the guarantee of their return a priority.I wonder why and how idiots always end up being the ones making the decisions while the seemingly or supposedly intelligent ones take orders.I wish we could have many more men like Mr Camarda speaking out for what is right and not just hanging on to a death and guilt trap called a Job.Mr.Camarda we are with you all the way!!!!

This is a bet the Agency decision. Disregarding the safety team’s recommendations just to meet an arbitrary flight schedule 10 years out? You don’t need to take these risks when it is not a life saving mission. I will keep my fingers crossed.

I’m inclined to go with NASA on this one. Mr. Camarda is correct in perceiving the ideal for safety – a total removal of the foam – and that is the goal NASA’s design team is moving toward. They have already made a number of changes for safety’s sake, including the removal of foam from many critical areas. However, each change carries with it the risk of unforeseen trouble. You don’t want to make so many untested changes at once that you actually drive the risk of disaster UP. Incremental changes are normally the rule for success.
I think NASA leadership has made a carefully considered decision about how much risk to embrace at this point in the program.

Its too easy to say big complex things aren’t safe. You can’t lose. Oh, and if you call my bluff and fire me, I’ll use the media to retaliate.
Not the kind of person that should be in a high level position.

The Space program:
While the shuttle has been a great boon to the exploration of near Earth orbit it has never been able to meet the lofty goals set out in its inception. The initial project was for a reusable low cost vehicle, yet when all was said and done it became a bloated white elephant- and how safe is a ride on that elephant? Everyone who works on the shuttle program does their best to ensure it is as safe as possible- yet as humans, we are fallible, and so are the machines that we build. With the budget a mere 15 billion, which is not a considerable amount of the national budget (27 billion spent in 2005 on pork barrel projects- source: CAGW) only so much time and limited monies can be invested towards safety, there will always be risk- no matter how good the engineering is. Is the risk worth it? “Our God-given curiosity will force us to go there ourselves, because in the final analysis, only Man can evaluate the Moon in terms understandable to other men.”, Gus Grissom when asked about the risks of the Space program.

Isn’t interesting how NASA has not met any significant milestones since 1969 when we landed on the moon. We keep doing the same thing we were doing in the 60s, circling the earth (and we can’t even do that right). NASA was the premier space agency and I’m ashamed to say, that the agency has obviously been taken over by politicians out to make a name for themselves. C’mon, let’s find the right person to run the agency. Someone who understands true project management, science, mitigating risks, and moving the entire program in a positive direction. What a disgrace NASA is…

Mr.Camarda, Your honesty is comendable, but it’s a sad commentary of our times when we would be shocked when someone told the trueth.
NASA has become a beurocratic quagmire of unimaginitive yes-men. Gone are the days when ideas from every corner were considered and every dollar was used to its full extent. Waste was not an option, nor was fear. Loss of life is an obvious result of trying to do something as dangerous as leaving this planet and venturing “Out There”. Get used to it. Robots can not take the place of the “human element”. Fix Hubble. Finish the Space Station. Stop arguing and wasting my tax dollars and GET ON WITH IT!!! M.P.H,

I dont understand why NASA does not try to force foam to fall off, hell have it designed to fall upon liftoff instead of having it try to stay on. Its only there for prelaunch anti ice buildup, just let the crap fall off at liftoff.

Way to stand up for the truth! It’s a shame that upper management at NASA can’t listen to their own experts, particularly when folks lives are on the line. It should be apparent Mr. Camarda understands that there is a certain element of risk involved with launch, having been a member of the crew himself on the last mission. So if he is speaking out about the very next launch, shouldn’t that be a RED FLAG? Shouln’t the powers that be pay attention? To many “shoulds”, not enough “woulds”.

The shuttle and space station (ISS) are locked in a symbiotic relationship. The shuttle exists to service the ISS. The ISS exists to give the shuttle something to do. Both are gigantic frauds perpetrated on the taxpayers and should be scrapped.
The shuttle’s computer equipment & other components are so outdated that NASA has to scrounge for parts on eBay. To paraphrase the old car commercial, this is not your father’s NASA. The 1960s-70s version knew how to get things done, and done right — like going to the moon. Today’s NASA is just another bloated govt. bureaucracy whose real mission is to spend as much money as possible, while being unable to get people out of low Earth orbit.
Other posters here have it right. Keep sending out those great robot probes, and scrap the manned program. And this is from someone who’s avidly followed the space program since childhood.

I’ve followed the space program on and off for most of my life because I believe in the desire to explore our universe. Each and every astronaught knows the risks of what they do. Most have been test pilots and thrive on the risks. It’s their personality.
One of the things that I’ve found about the foam on the external tank is that the ‘enviornmentalists’ harped quite loudly that the foam that was used caused too much enviornmental damage. So, a new foam was developed, the type that is currently used. The new foam is not as good as the original makeup. Why they caved to the demand is beyond me and why they didn’t go back after the first accident is so far out there beyond belief.
For those that say that the entire space program is a huge waste of money…. consider we may not have our laptop pcs yet, if it weren’t for the space program. And a whole host of other ‘gadgets’ we can’t seem to do without today. Because of the need to make the shuttle as light as possible, minaturization of parts was necessary. Because of that, spin offs have taken place – including the MRI machines and polimers that are now used in artificial joint replacements.
Space explorations should not stop. Yes, it needs a major overhaul and removed from political debates.

The foam on the tank serves one main purpose – it keeps ice from forming on the tank. Ice is a more serious debris threat than foam. Some of the foam – such as the foam on the PAL ramp, protected pressure lines from the aerodynamic forces of the launch.

I am both saddened and outraged that Dr. Charles Camarda has been relieved of his position of Director of Engineering at the NASA Johnson Space Center. I applaude him for taking a stand for his engineering based assessment of shuttle launch safety concerns. An extremely well qualified indiviidual has been reassigned at a time when his expertise is most needed. In my NASA career I was fortunate to work with Dr. Camarda as well as to serve on a technical team to assess the integrity of the thermal protection tiles before the first launch of the Shuttle. My perspective says to me that there is something very wrong with the recent events that have occurred.
Gary L. Giles

Is the aforementioned posting a joke or something????Man did land on the moon.And that is that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

David and Don said it all. There are inherent risks in exploration. NASA has become a politicized gaggle of short-sighted wimps. What do you think the odds of failure were for Alan Shepard and the rest of the Mercury Astronauts? Does anybody remember that the odds given for the success and safe return of the Apollo 11 Astronauts were 50/50? The only way to have a safe mission is to leave the equipment on the ground. Should they ignore safety? Of course not, but neither should they shut the program down because of it. The shuttle is a bad design, forced on NASA by a Congress led by William Proxmire. The budget was so limited, that they had to pick a design and make it work instead of finding the best (and safest) design. We need to move on to manned colonization of the moon, and manned exploration of Mars. These are the stepping stones of man’s future. NASA is a mess. It needs to be rebuilt with leadership and a team that has the vision and courage to do this, and do it right.

Manned space exploration is a dangerous buisness. Though it is impossible to make space travel completely safe at this time, it can be made safer. There is a lack of media coverage on the possitive aspects of the program. a lack of knowledge in the general population.
When Nasa fails we cry foul! however, sending 19 and 20 year olds into battle is ok. We are explorers and risk comes with the territorry