[Stallone]

Here's my thought on the entire concept itself.

Since the shuttle is covered with a skin, the solid rocket boosters are covered, and even the astronauts, is it really FRICKING ROCKET SCIENCE to cover the exposed styrofoam with a thin coating, skin, etc. that will give the insulation compression strength and pressure adhesion to the body itself?

Why the hell do we expect EXPOSED styrofoam to be an aerodynamically stable substrate?

Even a STUCCO house has a layer of parging over the styrofoam.

Is NASA that FRICKING STUPID?

[alecqss]

My point is political. Namely, EPA and eco-groups should carry a responsibility for their actions as anyone else. Period.

It's not NASA fault just because NASA's management was not brave enough to withstand a political pressure. They were not brave enough, alright, but that's beside the point.

Very fine scientists and very skilled managers could be total cowards when it comes to political pressure, especially in a "politically correct" context. Can you imagine all the howling from the powerful eco-groups and the consequences to a person who would decide to stand in a way of "saving the planet"!

The EPA decision forced NASA into changes that increase risk of a disaster. What for? The benefit to the environment was so small, that it was pretty much negated by the pollution resulted from the Columbia catastrophe.