Immediately after the space shuttle Columbia broke up upon re-entry ten years ago, I realized that it was very unlikely that NASA did not know that the spacecraft had been damaged.  Further, I was certain that NASA had been aware the ship would probably be destroyed upon re-entry.  My only question was whether the crew had been told or not.  I was, after a few weeks, sure that they had not been told since there was no discussion of it by family members getting out to the press.  And I was optimistic that, eventually, someone would talk and let us know the whole story.

Yes, I'll admit it: I was suspicious of a "conspiracy."   My suspicions were in part confirmed by the information that came out immediately after the incident concerning the probable cause of the disaster.  They had to have analyzed that footage immediately after take off as a routine matter, I was sure.  The speed with which they came out with a lot of information was damning as well.

It was obvious to me that there was a cover-up of the facts to avoid an unprecedented public relations disaster that would have haunted NASA for years.  Imagine, I stated to friends on and off the internet, what an utter failure NASA would have looked like as they had helplessly watched from below as the astronauts spent their last days alive in orbit, unable to return to earth, and slowly ran out of air.  The space shuttle Columbia as an orbiting tomb was anathema to bureaucrats who make a very expensive affair out of launching rockets on old systems and so far are remaining an obstacle to man's full commercial exploitation of space.   They were, and are, in the "catbird seat."  They don't want to give up any of the taxpayer dollars flowing into their organization.  To keep those dollars flowing, they have to engage heavily in politics.  Politics is centered on perception and public reactions to what they accomplish--and especially on mistakes they make.

As bureaucracies tend to do, the decision to kill the astronauts upon reentry in an "accident" was made in order to protect the government agency and cover up their bureaucratic bumbling.  While there was no way to "win" in the situation, the leaders quickly determined that the far better alternative was to have the accident be short and horrific with the resulting wave of public sympathy to ameliorate the negative outcome.  On the other hand, a drawn out disaster lasting many days of instant news cycles with video footage of astronauts tearfully saying goodbye would have certainly led to the dismissal of the leadership and possibly a total reorganization of NASA. That the decision made was a result of cold, calculating minds that put the lives of the astronauts as the last priority has finally been revealed:

Those on the ground decided that it would be better if the crew were spared knowledge of the risks.

There was no way to repair any suspected damage - the crew were far from the International Space Station and had no robotic arm for repairs. It would have taken too long to send up another shuttle to rescue them.

Wayne Hale, who went on to become space shuttle program manager, has written on his blog about the fateful day.

'After one of the MMTs (Mission Management Team) when possible damage to the orbiter was discussed, he (Flight Director Jon Harpold) gave me his opinion: ''You know, there is nothing we can do about damage to the TPS (Thermal Protection System).'

'"If it has been damaged it's probably better not to know. I think the crew would rather not know. Don't you think it would be better for them to have a happy successful flight and die unexpectedly during entry than to stay on orbit, knowing that there was nothing to be done, until the air ran out?"'

Well, uh, since I, like most people, actually have some empathy for the individuals that died aboard the space shuttle, I think if I had been in that situation that it would have been really grand in terms of the big picture of one's brief existence on (and above) earth to have had a chance to say goodbye to my friends and family before my body was destroyed in a fiery explosion miles above the earth.

Who the hell were they to determine what was best for the astronauts?  What the bureaucracy did in taking away their last few days of existence is something akin to to murder.  Flippantly assuming what the astronauts might have wanted or what was "best" for them is arrogant and evil, yet it is the essence of the all-powerful, big government mindset.  Oh, how generous of them to send the shuttle crew to their deaths a few days earlier than they had to.  They "saved them" from all that mental anguish?  To hell with that! If it had been me, I'd have wanted every last second of life.

Yeah, it would have been miserable to go through that expectation of certain death, probably making the futile attempt to reenter just before the air ran out, but I'd rather have been treated with a little respect as a fellow human being and told of the bad news.  Those last few days of existence would have been like gold to me and to my family however upsetting the circumstances. Such an ending, knowing that it is near, is a far better one than being conveniently dismissed as just another dog or chimpanzee experiment that just so happened to end in the death of the subjects.

Although another article from 2011 treated the discussion as if it were all a hypothetical question at the time and state that members of NASA leadership were certain that the heat shield would be fine, it is clear that the news of this discussion was held back on purpose in order to protect themselves and the agency as a whole.  It is also apparent that the fact that the discussion occurred at all--even if under what they claim were "hypothetical" terms--indicates that there was, at the very least, a willing blindness to the potential of disaster.  They purposefully did not do everything they could have to investigate fully the consequences after being made aware early on of the foam impact.

It is apparent to me that this was much more than a hypothetical discussion.  It was, at the very least, a trial balloon that was quickly shot down by the powers that be.  The question, if put in plain English, really was, "Since there was a heavy impact of a large piece of foam at high velocity on a critical section of the shuttle's  heat shield, should we risk putting our agency under negative, worldwide scrutiny of the entire world in a drawn out, real-life disaster epic by actually finding out the facts of the situation?"

The answer was, "No.  We let the astronauts die without warning for the good of the American space program and in order to protect our jobs.  Look out for number one and CYA!"

Strangely enough, Hale admits there was a purposeful attempt to deceive the Columbia astronauts.  NASA leadership admittedly had very big concerns but they downplayed everything to the crew:

NASA managers even sent the crew a 15-second video clip of the foam strike and “made it very clear to them no, no concerns,” according to the independent board that later investigated the accident. Eight times, NASA had the opportunity to get a closer look at the damage— using military satellites — and NASA mistakenly ignored those chances to see how bad the problem was, the accident board concluded.

Claiming that there were "no concerns" when there obviously were, Hale admits "[t]here was never any debate about what to tell the crew.”

And what they told them was not the whole truth obviously.

But then they go on to claim that they would have told the astronauts if they had been aware of the full extent of the damage:

And had NASA realized the severity of the problem, the space agency would not have just let the astronauts die without a fight or a word, despite Harpold’s hypothetical question, Hale said.

“We would have pulled out all the stops. There would have been no stone left unturned. We would have had the entire nation working on it,” Hale said. Ultimately, Hale said he thinks whatever NASA would have tried in 2003 with limited time and knowledge probably would have failed.

But then Hale admits they purposefully did not take advantage of the means to fully investigate the extent of the damage due to a "fatalistic attitude about the heat shield system being unfixable, which was “a wrong-headed cultural norm that we had all bought into,” Hale said.

Which was it then?  A cultural norm of hopelessness and not wanting to know even when there are obviously bad signs of potential damage?  Or was it purposeful deceit?  Obviously it was both.  They admit that they knew there was potentially bad damage but didn't want to face the consequences in a responsible manner and hide their heads in the sand. 

What happened was obviously bureaucratic mind-gaming aimed at avoiding dealing with the problem in an open and honest matter.  The leadership at NASA essentially admits that they did not want to know for absolute certain that there was a problem.  That really means, for the bureaucratic mindset that they didn't want to be held culpable for having known ahead of time that the flight was doomed.  If they had fully investigated, they couldn't have held out any hope and would have been forced to tell the crew the bad news.  If, as they decided due to "fatalistic attitude about the heat shield system being unfixable" not to investigate, they felt themselves not responsible for what happened.  "Oops!  How did THAT  happen?"

Then, of course, there was the expected drama of a full investigation, Challenger incident redux, and the systematic diffusion of real blame away from the leadership.  Noble goals of not letting this ever happen again, developing a questionable repair kit, and claiming they were "never ever going to say that there is nothing we can do” are designed to distract but really only confirm that their failure to investigate was designed to protect themselves and their agency.

It is obvious that fear alone determined NASA administrators' course of action.  They knew that the chunk of foam that hit was the biggest by far to ever hit a shuttle and they knew already of damage caused by smaller chunks and they knew the location of the hit was critical.

Following the crash, low-level engineers at Johnson Space Center revealed that they had tried to alert NASA senior staff about problems with the shuttle.

One of the most fundamental aspects of human dignity is that of choice.  The leadership at NASA, in my opinion, acted in a depraved and cowardly manner.  They took away the element of choice from the astronauts aboard Columbia.  Withholding the knowledge they had from those fellow human beings most affected by it is criminal negligence in this writer's opinion.  Treating humans as mere cogs in the NASA machine is the worst sin of all, morally.  They took away their choice and their dignity by presuming to know what was best for them.  NASA's treatment of the Columbia crew as not worthy of being consulted on their impending doom is a stain upon their reputation that can never be removed. 

The treatment of the space shuttle Columbia crew by a self-absorbed government agency led by money-grubbing psychopaths looking out for the best interests of their future funding rather than treating their fellow man with respect is reprehensible.  It should go down in history as yet another example of how big government treats individuals with disrespect.  This treatment is part of the ongoing process of dehumanization of individuals and their attendant rights and liberties by creating in the public's minds the perception that individuals are the "little people" and that the grand goals and desires of large organizations and governments are the most important parts of the human experience.  Indeed, space flight and the conquering of space are grand achievements that capture the imagination but even those goals and accomplishments so far are absolutely nothing compared to the miracle of life here on earth and the fact of our existence in the universe around us.  Group achievements can never overshadow the wonder of the individual's relationship to God and nature. 

In the past, such a big government attitude belittling or ignoring individual liberty was the definition of being a Whig.  It was the Hamiltonian view that government existed in order to promote itself and to enrich favored individuals or groups in the ruling elite.  In other words, such self-serving government was an extension of the monarchic system and its attendant aristocracy.  Today, such a prevalent attitude is termed as being essential in order to promote grand public works projects in the name of the socialist state.  Identical elitist attitudes, just different names for the same old tyranny.

Such organizations as NASA are very impersonal as a whole yet the experience that each of us has in our lives, due to the very nature of our existence, is VERY personal.  This whole incident is yet another warning of how groups of people often act more as a brutal mob than as moral creatures grateful for their existence and respectful of their fellow human beings.

So, chalk one up to the "conspiracy nuts" this time around.  Those of us who publicly or privately suspected the truth were right after all.  A cynical view of big government is healthy for one's chances of survival.  For those of us who want to be free and want succeeding generations to also be blessed with liberty, it is essential.


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/columbia-shuttle-crew-told-problem-reentry/story?id=18366185

http://clikhear.palmbeachpost.com/2011/world-nation/space/the-space-shuttle-columbia-disaster-the-columbia-is-lost-there-are-no-survivors/

By Chuck Baldwin
January 4, 2013

Archived column:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5345

If Barack Obama and his gaggle of gun grabbers have their way, the American citizenry will have all of their firearms taken away. If their current attempt to outlaw semi-automatic rifles is successful, does anyone think it will stop there? Don’t be naïve! The goal of people like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, et al., has always been total gun confiscation. In fact, Senator Feinstein is actually on record as saying so.

According to Infowars.com, “Senator Dianne Feinstein’s ultimate plan has always been to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn in their guns to the government, period. Feinstein’s bill would criminalize millions of Americans and completely eviscerate second amendment rights.

“She tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to target law-abiding American gun owners.

“On Thursday, Feinstein will introduce her dream bill to disarm the American people. The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-register firearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.

“Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.

“It is a gun confiscation bill.

“The proposed bill is open declaration of war on the Second Amendment.

“It’s no coincidence that the communist Chinese, the biggest holders of U.S. debt, have demanded the American people be disarmed. History tells us that it is the instinct of all tyrants to disarm the slaves.”

The report plays a video in which Senator Feinstein said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

See the report at:

http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-feinstein-says-prepare-to-turn-in-your-guns/

Writing for the National Association for Gun Rights, Dudley Brown said, “After reading Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, I can only describe it as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

“The definition of an ‘Assault Weapon’ in this bill is so broad you can drive a truck through it!

They’re targeting EVERYTHING--rifles, shotguns and even handguns.

“You see, the gun-grabbers are going for broke.

“Even owners of supposedly ‘grandfathered’ firearms will be treated like common criminals.

“If passed, Feinstein’s so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban would:

“--Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns;

“--Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one ‘military characteristic’--which could mean just about anything that makes a gun ‘look scary.’

“--Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds;

“--Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and unnecessary fingerprinting;

“--Force owners of ALL ‘grandfathered’ weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law. That’s right. If you own a $10 magazine that’s more than 10 rounds, you’ll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

“And you and I both know registration is only the first step toward outright confiscation. So don’t be fooled.”

See the report at:

http://tiny.cc/5urcqw

As I stated in this column last week, “The semi-automatic rifle is the vanguard of our liberty; it is the surest and most trustworthy means of our self-defense; and it is the primary companion of any man who would both protect and feed his family.

“Make no mistake about it: to take away an American’s right to a semi-automatic rifle is to FULLY DISARM HIM. There is no Second Amendment; there is no right to keep and bear arms; there is no citizen militia; there is no liberty without the semi-automatic rifle!”

In that column I also quoted Thomas Jefferson who rightly observed, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

See my column at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5335

And it is Jefferson’s observation that the “strongest reason” that the American people must always retain the right to keep and bear arms is “to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” that is universally ignored in the modern gun-control debate.

Throughout the United States, there are tens of millions of fully-armed citizens who are more than capable of defending themselves and their communities against any enemy--whether that enemy is an internal or external one. In fact, many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US armed forces. Firearms--especially semi-automatic rifles--in the hands of millions of American citizens is truly the only thing that stands between freedom and tyranny for the people of the United States. That Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein want to disarm the American people should be considered an act of war against our liberties! In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this is a line in the sand that none of us can afford to ignore.

Here’s how we must fight:

1. We must literally inundate our US representatives and senators with the most vociferous protest.

We must make sure that every representative and senator in America is told that under no uncertain terms their reelection will be determined by how they vote on this issue. Obviously, people such as Senators Feinstein and Schumer come from liberal, anti-gun states--which is why they feel safe in proposing these draconian gun-control measures. However, the vast majority of US House members represent average God-fearing Americans to whom the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct. And make no mistake about it: the legislative battle will be won or lost in the US House of Representatives.

Here in Montana, however, our two US senators (both Democrats) proudly profess to be pro-Second Amendment. Montanans should be sending a strong message to both of these senators to hold the line for our right to keep and bear arms--including semi-automatic rifles. I cannot imagine that any civil magistrate from either major political party could hope to be reelected in the State of Montana who would support Senator Feinstein’s gun-grab bill. And I would hope and pray that there would be dozens of other states in which the Second Amendment is equally honored.

Folks, CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS NOW! If we expect to retain any semblance of freedom for our posterity, we must pick up the phones and barrage our representatives and senators with opposition to this gun-control bill. And we must do it NOW! Furthermore, we must let our elected officials know that under no uncertain terms there can be NO COMPROMISE, that only outright opposition to any new gun-control measures will be deemed acceptable. There are already far too many gun-control laws in this country. We cannot accept any more abridgements and restrictions to our right to keep and bear arms. NO MORE!

2. We must demand of our State governors and legislators that they resist any attempts of the federal government to outlaw our firearms.

Should the Republican-led House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., cave-in to the Obama gun-grab like they did on Obama’s tax increases, it will be up to the states to say NO! If there is a single issue for which individual, sovereign states would be willing to defy the federal government and protect the rights and liberties of their citizens, it will be this issue. If the states, and liberty-minded people of the states, do not stand as one on this issue, there is no issue for which they would stand. We either draw the line on this issue or our liberties are gone forever!

This means State legislatures should pass laws defying the federal gun ban and protecting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms within their states. Governors should be willing to utilize State law enforcement agencies to protect their citizens’ right to keep (and not register) their guns, and county sheriffs should stiffen their backs and refuse to allow any federal police agency from enforcing the gun ban. After all, the county sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority in his or her county, trumping even federal law enforcement officers.

3. Individual citizens like you and I must be willing to draw our personal line in the sand on this issue and refuse to comply with any law requiring us to register or surrender our firearms--including our semi-automatic rifles.

Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesn’t do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I don’t know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. It’s not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw!

It is time RIGHT NOW for every American citizen to make up his or her mind on this issue.

There are many laws, which I personally find repugnant and even unconstitutional, to which I grudgingly submit. For example, while I very much understand, and even philosophically agree with, those who refuse to pay income taxes, I pay income taxes.  Even though I believe the income tax to be unconstitutional, onerous, and maybe even nefarious, I have not drawn my line in the sand on that issue. I haven’t drawn a line in the sand on the requirement for all sorts of government licenses, i.e., marriage licenses, driver’s licenses, CCW permits, Social Security cards, etc., even though I personally believe that many requirements for licensure stretch the boundaries of legitimate government. And, again, even though I understand those who refuse to take them, I have a marriage license, a driver’s license, a CCW permit, and a Social Security card. There are many issues over which I am willing to be annoyed, but for the sake of perceived Christian testimony and/or perceived good citizenship, I reluctantly and grudgingly comply. But on the issue of taking away my right to keep and bear arms--including a semi-automatic rifle--I absolutely refuse to comply!

My line in the sand is drawn here!

Make no mistake about it: it is not just semi-automatic rifles that these gun grabbers are after.  Ultimately, they want to take all of our guns. We either stop them now or there will be no stopping them at all.

It is no hyperbole to say that this attempt by people such as Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein to make outlaws out of law-abiding citizens for simply exercising our right to keep and bear arms is the most important political battle of our lifetimes! I am not exaggerating when I say that the future of freedom and liberty for our children and for our country--not to mention the future of our own personal lives and freedom--hang in the balance.

(c) Chuck Baldwin