Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shuttle Foam Loss Linked to EPA Regs
newsmax.com ^ | Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:27 a.m. EDT

Posted on 07/28/2005 8:57:02 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch

Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:27 a.m. EDT Shuttle Foam Loss Linked to EPA Regs

As recently as last month, NASA had been warned that foam insulation on the space shuttle's external fuel tank could sheer off as it did in the 2003 Columbia disaster - a problem that has plagued space shuttle flights since NASA switched to a non-Freon-based type of foam insulation to comply with Clinton Administration Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

"Despite exhaustive work and considerable progress over the past 2-1/2 years, NASA has been unable to eliminate the possibility of dangerous pieces of foam and ice from breaking off the external fuel tank and striking the shuttle at liftoff," the agency's Return-to-Flight Task Force said just last month, according to the Associated Press. But instead of returning the much safer, politically incorrect, Freon-based foam for Discovery's launch, the space agency tinkered with the application process, changing "the way the foam was applied to reduce the size and number of air pockets," according to Newsday.

"NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to 11 times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, freon-based foam," warned space expert Robert Garmong just nine months ago.

In fact, though NASA never acknowledged that its environmentally friendly, more brittle foam had anything to do with the foam sheering problem, the link had been well documented within weeks of the Columbia disaster.

In Feb. 2003, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported:

"NASA engineers have known for at least five years that insulating foam could peel off the space shuttle's external fuel tanks and damage the vital heat-protecting tiles that the space agency says were the likely 'root cause' of Saturday's shuttle disaster."

In a 1997 report, NASA mechanical systems engineer Greg Katnik "noted that the 1997 mission, STS-87, was the first to use a new method of 'foaming' the tanks, one designed to address NASA's goal of using environmentally friendly products. The shift came as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was ordering many industries to phase out the use of Freon, an aerosol propellant linked to ozone depletion and global warming," the Inquirer said.

Before the environmentally friendly new insulation was used, about 40 of the spacecraft's 26,000 ceramic tiles would sustain damage in missions. However, Katnik reported that NASA engineers found 308 "hits" to Columbia after a 1997 flight.

A "massive material loss on the side of the external tank" caused much of the damage, Katnik wrote in an article in Space Team Online.

He called the damage "significant." One hundred thirty-two hits were bigger than 1 inch in diameter, and some slashes were as long as 15 inches.

"As recently as last September [2002], a retired engineering manager for Lockheed Martin, the contractor that assembles the tanks, told a conference in New Orleans that developing a new foam to meet environmental standards had 'been much more difficult than anticipated,'" the Inquirer said.

The engineer, who helped design the thermal protection system, said that switching from the Freon foam "resulted in unanticipated program impacts, such as foam loss during flight."


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clintonlegacy; envirowhackos; epa; nasa; shuttlecolumbia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last
To: Patton@Bastogne
I understand your decision completely. I was an analyst on the program, and authored the document a few weeks before the Challenger incident that kept Lockheed from losing the contract as Prime Contractor. I didn't give attending the Congressional hearing a thought, but did consider making contact outside of work. This really tore at me.

I was one of the individuals kept from the investigators. It seemed so surreal. A preliminary investigative team visited our facility weeks ahead of the Congressional investigators. This preliminary team said their efforts were to help the Congressional investigators by identifying which people had information and which ones did not. They said it would be helpful if the investigators didn't have to weed through the entire staff to find the ones that they needed to speak with. It was actually a sham to keep certain individuals from the investigators.

The day the investigators arrived at the facility they were denied access and kept at the gates for an hour and a half. It was during that time that "men in black" came, escorted me to a vehicle parked in the back of the facility and transported me to a small facility about twenty-five miles away. I knew one of the men and asked why this was happening and he said I knew something the investigators must never know. I was sequestered there until the investigators left.

Seeing how this whole process unfolded had a deeply disturbing and lasting effect on me. Some six months later I volunteered myself for a layoff. I was offered a very lucrative position if I would change my decision and stay, but I couldn't accept it. I know others made decisions to stay, and I don't fault their decisions. They didn't know what I knew. I just couldn't.

I'll likely never reveal what I knew prior to the Challenger incident. I was warned never to discuss certain aspects of the program in my exit interview. That's acceptable to me because of my security clearance conditions.

I have no qualms revealing how Congressional investigations can be tampered with to decide the outcome of those investigations.
121 posted on 07/29/2005 10:57:05 AM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

Comment #122 Removed by Moderator

To: Patton@Bastogne

I for one am sorry about your sacrifice. It is just wrong but unfortunately the standard.


123 posted on 07/29/2005 8:05:51 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Thanks Hippies


124 posted on 07/29/2005 8:09:50 PM PDT by 359Henrie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Wow. All these posts... and not a single one (that I saw) pointed out the fact that Columbia used the *OLD* foam.

See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453018/posts#28


125 posted on 07/30/2005 12:25:09 PM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

It's going to remain nearly impossible to avoid some damage to the ship as long as they attach it to the side of the fuel tank rather than above it.


126 posted on 07/30/2005 12:28:52 PM PDT by RightWhale (Substance is essentially the relationship of accidents to itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

Clinton Legacy


127 posted on 07/31/2005 9:57:42 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

ping


128 posted on 07/31/2005 10:00:58 AM PDT by FOG724
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961; Clock King; brownsfan; Sergio

"The propellant mixture in each SRB motor consists of an (Click link for more info and facts about ammonium perchlorate) ammonium perchlorate ( (A substance that oxidizes another substance) oxidizer, 69.6 percent by weight), (A silvery ductile metallic element found primarily in bauxite) aluminum ( (A substance that can be consumed to produce energy) fuel, 16 percent), (Click link for more info and facts about iron oxide) iron oxide (a ((chemistry) a substance that initiates or accelerates a chemical reaction without itself being affected) catalyst, 0.4 percent), a (A naturally occurring or synthetic compound consisting of large molecules made up of a linked series of repeated simple monomers) polymer (a binder that holds the mixture together, 12.04 percent), and an (A thermosetting resin; used chiefly in strong adhesives and coatings and laminates) epoxy curing agent (1.96 percent).


"The propellant is an 11-point ((astronomy) a celestial body of hot gases that radiates energy derived from thermonuclear reactions in the interior) star-shaped perforation in the forward motor segment and a double-truncated- (Cone-shaped mass of ovule- or spore-bearing scales or bracts) cone perforation in each of the aft segments and aft closure.

"This configuration provides high thrust at ignition and then reduces the thrust by approximately a third 50 seconds after lift-off to prevent overstressing the vehicle during maximum dynamic pressure.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/s/sp/space_shuttle_solid_rocket_booster.htm


129 posted on 07/31/2005 10:03:49 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961; Clock King; brownsfan; Sergio

"Ammonium perchlorate is an inorganic salt used in solid rocket fuel, in
munitions and in the pyrotechnics industry. Perchlorate manufacturers
estimate that approximately 90% of perchlorate is used for solid rocket
fuel. Ammonium perchlorate dissolves as easily as table salt, and the
resulting anion is stable and can persist for decades in the
environment, and moves easily through both groundwater and surface
water. Perchlorate has been detected in 110 public water supply wells
in California from at least 14 distinct sources, in the Colorado River
from sources in Nevada, and in surface or groundwater in Utah, Texas,
New York, Maryland, and Arkansas."

http://www.cpeo.org/lists/military/1998/msg00301.html


130 posted on 07/31/2005 10:07:01 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
.


Orionblamblam,


Wow. All these posts... and not a single one (that I saw) pointed out the fact that Columbia used the *OLD* foam.


You're correct ... the Old Foam (SOFI) was just as screwed-up as Clinton's New Foam ...


NASA's (moral) failues run VERY deep with the Space Shuttle Program ...


I seriously considered reporting all the "distant past" failure history (going back to 1983), as well as attending the congressional hearings, after the Columbia disaster.

Why didn't I ?

Because I'd "never" work again in the U.S. aerospace business. Period.

I've (almost) sacrificed my entire career once (regarding data and warnings about External Tank foam adhesion failures) while working at Martin-Marietta in New Orleans.

All my efforts got me was being completely ignored by NASA ... and one (very long) year of horrendous unemployment.


Never again.


Patton@Bastogne


.
131 posted on 08/01/2005 4:40:10 AM PDT by Patton@Bastogne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

An outer wall need not be pressure tight -- all it need be is enough to keep the foam inside from shedding away during launch.


132 posted on 08/01/2005 4:47:55 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Budge
Ping!

Don't know if you're following this.

133 posted on 08/01/2005 4:53:46 AM PDT by sweetliberty (Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

> Clinton Legacy


Actually, "Nixon Legacy."


134 posted on 08/01/2005 8:06:02 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. NASA has said previously it was aware of four flights since 1983 where foam broke off the shuttle fuel tanks in precisely the same place that it broke off during the Columbia launch, including a 10-day mission to the International Space Station by Atlantis that began Oct. 7, 2002.

But "EPA kills" sounds so much better than "freon-free foam works exactly the same as freon-based foam -- both fall off in chunks."


135 posted on 08/01/2005 8:21:49 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
Yeah, I'm following it. It's the same conclusion FReepers made right after the Clombia disaster.

But we can't go against idiotic EPANazi rules. A bug might die if we do.

136 posted on 08/01/2005 4:39:08 PM PDT by Budge (<>< Sit Nomen Domini benedictum. <><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Yes it did, many missions were flown with the earlier foam. However many of those also flew with white paint covering the foam. Maybe the paint helped smooth the airflow over the foam?

Sorry, but that is VERY wrong. STS-1 and STS-2 were the only shuttle flights to ever have a painted external tank. From STS-3 on, the tank was unpainted. 2 of 114 does not sound like many to me. While the new foam may have problems, the large chunks that came off on this flight and on Columbia were both OLD foam which used freon. This is a case of mismanagement, pure and simple. EPA regulations have not been to blame. But lets not bother to use any facts... its much simpler that way.
137 posted on 08/09/2005 11:34:31 AM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

bttt


138 posted on 08/09/2005 11:36:26 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CheneyChick

bump


139 posted on 08/09/2005 5:10:41 PM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sergio

no - it is horrendously toxic.

so, yes: the ecofriendliness of the new foam amounts to less than a drop in the bucket per launch.


140 posted on 08/09/2005 5:25:29 PM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson