[burzum]

Without EPA interference disaster would not happened. Previous foam break-offs were 1) small in size, and 2) small in numbers.

Not true. Appendix F.5 of the CAIB describes the sizes of foam breakoffs by mission. Pages 39 and 41 (47 and 49 of the PDF) give a few good diagrams. A little further in the Appendix shows that major losses occured on STS-7, STS-32, STS-42, STS-47, STS-50, STS-52, STS-56, STS-58, STS-62, STS-87 and STS-112 (the only recent loss other than obviously STS-107).

[bvw]

Was Admiral Rickover ever married?

[alecqss]

Here is from the horses' mouth itself (http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/katnik/sts87-12-23.html): "During the STS-87 mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of "foaming" the external tank had been used for this mission and the STS-86 mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter. Foam cause damage to a ceramic tile?! That seems unlikely, however when that foam is combined with a flight velocity between speeds of MACH two to MACH four, it becomes a projectile with incredible damage potential. The big question? At what phase of the flight did it happen and what changes need to be made to correct this for future missions? I will explain the entire process."