'97 Report Warned of Foam Damaging Tiles-Absence of Freon Led to Detachment of Foam

New York Times ^ | 2/03/03 | JAMES GLANZ and EDWARD WONG

[Sabertooth]

((((((growl)))))

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks for the ping, amigo.

[JohnHuang2]

Mega ping...

[dasboot]

Okay, got my answer: they didn't see the chunk explode until the next day, and the point of no-return had been long passed; But then they had to deal with the knowledge that they had failed massively--especially in light of the tile problems that were known, to have a contingency plan in-place for exactly this scenario.

Sounds like Dittmore is in total CYA mode, blaming it on the engineers. Wonder if he's gonna sleep soundly any time soon.

This stinks.

[Timesink]

In the immortal words of Arnold J Rimmer:

Ohhhhhh DEAR!

[dasboot]

Gambling with multi-billion-dollar spacecraft and lives of pilots IS NOT AN OPTION. Or, once, a long time ago, it wasn't. Dice were thrown here.

[Lancey Howard]

...to be environmentally friendly, NASA had eliminated the use of Freon in foam production, Mr. Katnik reported. The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., later concluded that the absence of Freon led to the detachment of the foam.

The irony of this is that the enviro-mice couldn't care less about the lives of seven astronauts.
That's simply seven less humans to pollute the earth, in their minds.

The Democrats, who are linked hand-in-glove with the environmentalist whackos, must be held accountable for the tragic deaths of the seven Columbia astronauts. Shame on the scumbag Democrats.

[Roscoe]

to be environmentally friendly, NASA had eliminated the use of Freon in foam production

BTTT

[TLBSHOW]

Please link to this thread for more and starts here at post 128

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/835422/posts?page=128#128

[Lancey Howard]

Posted by Lancey Howard to fso301
On News/Activism 02/04/2003 1:29 AM EST #14 of 18

I hope that some enterprising journalist traces to their roots these decisions by NASA to go "environment friendly" for space shuttle launches.
I want names.
I want to know if there was lobbying of any kind by the scumbag socialist enviro-mice.
I want to know if the Clinton administration was responsible for foisting these requirements on NASA.
Or was it Clinton's EPA?
Or was it Congress?
Who on God's green earth decided to screw around with proven methods for space shuttle launches and make these changes which were soon shown to cause more loss of insulation from the fuel tank, thereby causing more damage to the critical tiles and putting our astronauts at greater risk?

"Environment friendly" space shuttle launches!! Utter insanity.
I want names.

[dasboot]

Thanks. I'm with you. Ths loss was not an accident; it was, rather, a statistically predictable failure. The possibility of exactly this type of event, and the concommitant difficulties it posed, were known and anticipated, but not addressed.

How much does a shuttle cost? What value, fourteen lives, and the investment in training? Gee, there's a hard call. /sarc.

[SkyPilot]

BTTT!

[Aaron0617]

NASA FUBAR ping.

[Aaron0617]

"Environment friendly" space shuttle launches!! Utter insanity. I want names.

With all the fumes. With all the exaust that occurs during a shuttle launch. To make this change so that freon isn't used, is insanity.

Again, there is a lot more investigating to do. So, I will save this thread and refrain from screaming, but if this turns out to be the cause...

[dasboot]

Ralph Nader: Director, NASA Safety Commission.

[Lion's Cub]

The oblong chunk appears to be the size of the shuttle's astronaut hatch, which measures about 40 inches by 40 inches.

I think this was one piece of the info you were looking for.

[aristeides]

Interesting how this NY Times article mentions neither Clinton nor Goldin.

[GailA]

Has anyone looked into what actually holds the tiles in place? Was the adhesive or "glue" enviro-friendly and less apt to be as good as the original?