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."
Has to be Carter
Frightened of the environmental terrorists, no doubt.
The damage Carter did to this country was minimal compared to LBJ.
Did PC correct regulation kill the crew of the first shuttle disaster as well? I seem to remember some mention that the "O" rings might have been changed, made of "environmentally friendly" rubber. Hence the reason for them failing.
I am not sure, anyone know if this is true?
The insulation is sprayed on the tank and then cut down to the desired profile. It is supposed to adhere to the tank by itself. The problem appears to be that the new formula is not as strong as the old, either in staying attached to itself or the tank.
So it's been fixed. Right?
Right?
Ah yes fond memories of my wife's '87 Bronco. We were so broke in the early 90s. All I could do was stare at the disgusting mess on the hood and fume. Man I hate enviro-whackos.
CLINTON'S LEGACY. Something in which he can be proud.
For that matter, why not reverse the roll maneuver and get gravity pulling debris away from the shuttle instead of putting the shuttle between the ET and the earth? These are simple questions and there are probably of ways to shoot them down but sometimes the simple answers are the hardest to find.
Sovereign Immunity.
LOX (Liquid Oxygen) + LH (Liquid Hydrogen) = Explosion + water.
I'd say Jimmah Cah-tuh.
Hell no!
Its main constituent is the dreaded Hydrogen Dioxide!
Clintons Kill
"OK--Who was first?"
Carter or LBJ. Probably LBJ with Jimmuh a close second.
Hmmm maybe so... but we're still reaping Carter's idiocy and support for Islamo-terrorists.
Only to the ignorant or the PC...
All current Airliners are held together mostly with adhesives.
Neither faster nor better nor cheaper. Thanks EPA. Huzzahs Mr. Clinton.
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.