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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 next last
To: Buck W.
Good morning.
"OK--Who was first?"

Jimmuh Cahtuh.

Michael Frazier
41 posted on 07/28/2005 9:24:46 AM PDT by brazzaville (No surrender,no retreat. Well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

The hair net idea sounds like a good one actually. That would at least catch the big chunks like the one that hit the Columbia.


42 posted on 07/28/2005 9:25:04 AM PDT by tfecw (Vote Democrat, It's easier than working)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

More and more, the EPA is dragging this country down. Death by a thousand cuts.


43 posted on 07/28/2005 9:25:32 AM PDT by TChris ("You tweachewous miscweant!" - Elmer Fudd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpl

Explains a lot. Just last night I was thinking that I couldn't believe after hundreds of shuttle flights this all of a sudden became a problem.

It explains why it *has* just become a problem.

I'm sure the President has no idea. Too many government drones are afraid to speak-up for fear of being un PC.


44 posted on 07/28/2005 9:25:54 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (When a Jihadist dies, an angel gets its wings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bk1000

We are still paying for LBJ's disastrous "Great Society" programs and his gross mishandling of Vietnam.


45 posted on 07/28/2005 9:26:20 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: protest1
Yes, but it wasn't the O-ring composition but rather the putty used to seal them that had "big bad asbestos" removed from its formulation. Another post among the dozens about the foam composition brought up the fact that once asbestos was removed from the putty, it was way less heat resistant. It is believed to be the factor behind a few rocket failures and not just the Challenger. Search on "asbestos" and "putty" and you will probably find it.
46 posted on 07/28/2005 9:26:42 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Iraq is the bug light for terrorists" (Mike McConnell 7/2/05))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

IF you do some more checking on this issue you will find that the Clinton adminstration ordered the change, via the green tree enviornmentalists who operated out of teh White House.

xxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Clinton and has EPA friends caused this problem. Just check the records back in 1995 or 97. The green tree huggers were worried that the foam would not be bio degradable on the center fuel tank. So, a change was made in the compound of the insulation on the tank.


Check it out.


47 posted on 07/28/2005 9:26:59 AM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER (1984 is here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
Links to prior articles establishing the toll on astronauts -

from a very helpful anti-PC site, http://junkscience.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html

and from Capitalism Magazine

http://capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=2942

All in all a good yield of burnt offerings to Gaia.

48 posted on 07/28/2005 9:27:03 AM PDT by yatros from flatwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch

I go through more brake pads for my car now that there is no asbestos in them.


49 posted on 07/28/2005 9:27:05 AM PDT by junaid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

The gravity vector component is minuscule. In civilian talk, it wouldn't make a measurable difference.


50 posted on 07/28/2005 9:28:00 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
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?

Negative Gs.

51 posted on 07/28/2005 9:28:19 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tfecw

Actually, I'm thinking more of a distribution of forces thing than a saftey net effect, but yeah.


52 posted on 07/28/2005 9:28:54 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Iraq is the bug light for terrorists" (Mike McConnell 7/2/05))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Ignorant of this stuff, yes. PC, no. If Freon works better, go back to Freon. The shuttle can fly right through the ozone hole/sarcasm.


53 posted on 07/28/2005 9:31:10 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TBarnett34

And the use of non-freon based foam is Bush's fault how? He has nothing to do with the idiotic PC crap involved here. Nice stretch but it won't fly.


54 posted on 07/28/2005 9:32:14 AM PDT by calex59 (If you have to take me apart to get me there, then I don't want to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; nikos1121
The damage Carter did to this country was minimal compared to LBJ.

That's for sure. For disastrous policy, Jimmy Carter is only be a pimple on Lyndon Johnson's butt. For that matter, "Jimmy" is a pimple, wherever he is.

55 posted on 07/28/2005 9:35:21 AM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
How much extra weight would a cover to prevent foam from shedding off the ET add to launch weight? This mass would have to be subtracted from payload.

Can anyone present empirical proof that freon causes global warming, or did a discredited theory murder the crew of Columbia?

56 posted on 07/28/2005 9:35:23 AM PDT by jonascord (What is better than the wind at 6 O'clock on the 600 yard line?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
Didn't NASA start the whole PFC/ozone-hole hysteria/scam?

Sounds like they got hoisted on their own petard, to me.

57 posted on 07/28/2005 9:35:36 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws spawned the runaway federal health care monopoly and fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CheneyChick

Can anyone explain to me how a molecule composed of atoms all heavier than either oxygen or nitrogen finds its way to the top of the atmosphere?


58 posted on 07/28/2005 9:36:03 AM PDT by ElTianti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: junaid
I go through more brake pads for my car now that there is no asbestos in them.

Have you tried ceramic pads? They're made to retrofit many cars these days.

They're a little pricier (sometimes a lot pricier), but they stop better, last longer, and leave minimal brake dust coating on your wheels.
59 posted on 07/28/2005 9:39:14 AM PDT by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ElTianti

Wait, is that a trick rocket science question?


60 posted on 07/28/2005 9:39:49 AM PDT by CheneyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 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