Lost in Space: Were both space-shuttle disasters the result of putting environmentalism...

Insight on the News ^ | August 19, 2003 | John Berlau

[Cboldt]

Don't forget that the WTC steel beams were coated with epoxy after the protests. Original specs called for Asbestos which might have kept the towers from falling.

Steel columns on lower floors were covered with an insulation that contained asbesbos. The change to non-asbestos-bearing insulation was made just above the 60th floors.

[SpinyNorman]

Holy MTBE, Batman!!

"Mom, why does the water taste funny?"

"Because the green anarchists are trying to clean our air by poisoning our water, son."

[KosmicKitty]

Oh, don't get me going on the whole DDT ban. I spent the last few weeks doing some research on DDT and its effects on health, birds, and why it was banned. And it's absolutely criminal that it was banned.

The ban has killed more people than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined!! Won't go on here, but I just made a posting the other day with some background on the DDT ban.

I do so wish Al Gore was on the shuttle right now - the first envirowacko is space. Would have been interesting to see if he was willing to bet his life on his beliefs.

[biff]

O rings should never have been used in this application. They are notoriously deficient in high pressure joints, doubly so for flexible ones. They should have used a pressure energized double chevron lip seal, which is flexible enough to compensate for SRB joint eccentricity. I have seen these seals hold over 5,000 psi. I was severely disappointed after the Challenger disaster to see what NASA had allowed to be used in our spacecraft.

[nsmart]

>I do so wish Al Gore was on the shuttle right now - the first envirowacko is space. Would have been interesting to see if he was willing to bet his life on his beliefs.<

Can the Shuttle carry that much weight? Would he fit through the portals?

lol.. couldn't resist.

My guess is none of the sniveling 'leaders' would have the moxy to ride on board.

[nsmart]

Being a Libertarian, I love this web site:

http://www.perc.org/

Property and Environment Research Center

This site shows how private ownership of property provides the best protection for the land from pollution.

Of course, secure property rights are one of the most important rights given a citizen. After all, who would 'invest' in crop futures in Haiti or Zimbabwe? Is it prejudice? No, its the insecurity of not knowing you will reap the harvest before the outlaws do.

[nsmart]

Ping

[skinkinthegrass]

Is it true that NASA didn't change the foam at all for this launch? What on earth is different about this shuttle flight than the one that failed?

YES. ..On this flight, they applied the "Freon-Free" Crap w/ "more" care.

[skinkinthegrass]

No. I think that is accurate. But there were other issues too...The Rogers Commission found this to be a fatal flaw in judgment.

Thanks, for the Indepth/clear explanations. :D

[orionblamblam]

ERRR. Urban Myth Alert

Blame the greenies for many things, but *not* the Columbia foam. STS-107 used the old BX-250 foam made with CFC-11.

From the CAIB report, page 51:
Most of the External Tank is insulated with three types of spray-on foam. NCFI 24-124, a polyisocyanurate foam applied with blowing agent HCFC 141b hydrochlorofluorocarbon, is used on most areas of the liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks. NCFI 24-57, another polyisocyanurate foam applied with blowing agent HCFC 141b hydrochlorofluorocarbon, is used on the lower liquid hydrogen tank dome. BX-250, a polyurethane foam applied with CFC-11 chlorofluorocarbon, was used on domes, ramps, and areas where the foam is applied by hand. The foam types changed on External Tanks built after External Tank 93, which was used on STS-107, but these changes are beyond the scope of this section.

In other words: yes, the foam was changed... but for ETs *after* the one used for Columbia. Columbias ET used the same old freon-based blowing agent they've long used.

[orionblamblam]

> On this flight, they applied the "Freon-Free" Crap

Incorrect. See post 30.

[skinkinthegrass]

Incorrect. See post 30.

Thanks, for the correction. :)