[So Cal Rocket]

It wasn't a freon coolant system. Freon was used as in an aerosol form to apply the "old" foam insulation onto the Booster. When "ozone depleting substances" (ODS's) were outlawed a few years back, a different method was developed that did not use freon - this new method was not as efficient as the freon method and often led to debonding of the insulation from the skin of the booster.

[stimpyone]

It wasn't a freon coolant system. Freon was used as in an aerosol form to apply the "old" foam insulation onto the Booster. When "ozone depleting substances" (ODS's) were outlawed a few years back, a different method was developed that did not use freon - this new method was not as efficient as the freon method and often led to debonding of the insulation from the skin of the booster.

I've heard this theory as well, however this is something NASA has been dealing with for a number of years now, and they've had problems with foam separating off external tanks in several missions over the last few years. It may be "easy" to blame the problem on environmentalists, but it doesn't excuse whatever negligence on NASA's part that may have led to this disaster.

[TexasCajun]

Thanks for the education.

Would it be a correct assessment that the new freon-free method of apply the foam contributed to the failure?

Or is the foam that hit the shuttle not related to the foam that insulates the Booster?