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."
PC in action.
The space shuttle because of 'environmentally friendly' foam.
Malaria in africa because they banned DDT.
WTC Collapse due to no asbestos use on higher floors.
Environmentalism Kills.
I knew it was all Clinton's fault.
Another lovely mark on the legacy of our second worst President ever.
If only politicians could be sued for their negligence...
OK--Who was first?
/.....'OSHA' to investigate?
/.....Future 'Shuttle' Projects to be 'let-out' to India?
/.....Cheaper labor?
The EPA hasn't killed as many people as Rachel Carson, but they're trying.
Have to wonder how environmentally friendly the whole rest of the shuttle launch is.
I mean, if we are going to be PC about it. "Is this trip really necessary?"
They should use the best materials, the number of launches is already limited.
...should read PC inaction.
You won't see an IN-DEPTH story about this anywhere!!!
We need to wake up from self-administered stupor of sleep and smell the coffee.
This should be fixed then, by next week. This is the United States, we fix problems.
Our reps in DC need to kick someone's butt and get this fixed.
We need to put the correct foam on a new tank and launch as soon as possible.
Next, we need to get rid of the Shuttle and get its replacement in the air.
Serious question, is the exhaust from the solid rocket boosters "environmentally friendly"?
Best Regards
Sergio
Maybe I'm just a layman but can someone please tell me why these foam panels can't be bolted on in some way? I heard something about an adhesive, which seems ridiculous.
Maybe a few emails to Hannity, Neil Cavuto, O'Reilly, etc. to look into this might shine a light on this dangerous nonsense.
It is Clinton's fault. However, President Bush has been in the White House for four and a half years now. He has the authority to force NASA to go back to using the safer foam with a few simple pen-strokes.
If he doesn't do so, I have to conclude that he's either frightened or clueless.
"Serious question, is the exhaust from the solid rocket boosters "environmentally friendly"? "
I'm no expert, but here's my guess... the Solid Rocket Boosters are just as the name indicates. A solid chemical compound that is burned. That would most likely NOT be environmentally friendly.
The main tank, the big orange thing, is filled with liquid, mostly oxygen. That would be environmentally friendly.
So, the answer could be, yes and no.
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.