Posted on 07/28/2005 8:57:02 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
PC in action.
The space shuttle because of 'environmentally friendly' foam.
Malaria in africa because they banned DDT.
WTC Collapse due to no asbestos use on higher floors.
Environmentalism Kills.
I knew it was all Clinton's fault.
Another lovely mark on the legacy of our second worst President ever.
If only politicians could be sued for their negligence...
OK--Who was first?
/.....'OSHA' to investigate?
/.....Future 'Shuttle' Projects to be 'let-out' to India?
/.....Cheaper labor?
The EPA hasn't killed as many people as Rachel Carson, but they're trying.
Have to wonder how environmentally friendly the whole rest of the shuttle launch is.
I mean, if we are going to be PC about it. "Is this trip really necessary?"
They should use the best materials, the number of launches is already limited.
...should read PC inaction.
You won't see an IN-DEPTH story about this anywhere!!!
We need to wake up from self-administered stupor of sleep and smell the coffee.
This should be fixed then, by next week. This is the United States, we fix problems.
Our reps in DC need to kick someone's butt and get this fixed.
We need to put the correct foam on a new tank and launch as soon as possible.
Next, we need to get rid of the Shuttle and get its replacement in the air.
Serious question, is the exhaust from the solid rocket boosters "environmentally friendly"?
Best Regards
Sergio
Maybe I'm just a layman but can someone please tell me why these foam panels can't be bolted on in some way? I heard something about an adhesive, which seems ridiculous.
Maybe a few emails to Hannity, Neil Cavuto, O'Reilly, etc. to look into this might shine a light on this dangerous nonsense.
It is Clinton's fault. However, President Bush has been in the White House for four and a half years now. He has the authority to force NASA to go back to using the safer foam with a few simple pen-strokes.
If he doesn't do so, I have to conclude that he's either frightened or clueless.
"Serious question, is the exhaust from the solid rocket boosters "environmentally friendly"? "
I'm no expert, but here's my guess... the Solid Rocket Boosters are just as the name indicates. A solid chemical compound that is burned. That would most likely NOT be environmentally friendly.
The main tank, the big orange thing, is filled with liquid, mostly oxygen. That would be environmentally friendly.
So, the answer could be, yes and no.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.