• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Political Correctness" killed the Columbia astronauts

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I argued this for a long time at another web site. I was told I was wrong by the left (who never let facts get in their way.) Well, here are some facts. And now we see that the shuttle program has been stopped again because of the falling foam problem. I'm beginning to believe the left and the terrorists have one thing in common. To kill people, the destroy our civilization and progress, and burn down our forests (through their asinine "no burn" policies.) They are currently succeeding unless real Americans stand on their own two hind legs and take back the reins of power from these mindless nincompoops and fanatics.

Sometimes I think the left should be charged with manslaughter (at a minimum) in the astronaut deaths and needless forrest fires.
==================================
Shuttle Foam Loss Linked to EPA Regs
newsmax.com ^ | Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:27 a.m. EDT

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."


http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/28/93055.shtml
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Kudos on the anti-left rant there. Also, nice title, I always thought political correctness pertained to social issues, not enviormental ones. Ah, but you never cease to amaze me.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
One little fact here bud...there was no shuttle accident before the last one, yet the regulations took place years before. You must realize that it is, as you put it, asinine to say that. Isn't it possible that we just need to redesign the aging, and I mean aging, shuttles to meet our needs now and test, and test, to insure saftey of those going up to space?

But again, my opinion obviously has no weight with you since I am a member of the left.
 

Zebulon

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Missouri Mule said:
They are currently succeeding unless real Americans stand on their own two hind legs and take back the reins of power from these mindless nincompoops and fanatics.
Two HIND legs? As opposed to a real American's two FRONT legs?

Seriously, dude... I think the problem lies MUCH more with NASA's incompetence rather than Freon or non-Freon based foam. Are there REALLY only TWO kinds of foam? Is Freon now the wonder chemical, which will keep the foam on, regrow hair, and make our penises longer, and the Left is secretly conspiring to keep it from us all? Gimme a break.

They should scrap ALL the shuttles and get Burt Rattan to build them a nice new fleet of spacecraft that are MUCH cheaper and don't have to worry about reentry heat OR tiles OR falling foam.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Zebulon said:
Two HIND legs? As opposed to a real American's two FRONT legs?

Seriously, dude... I think the problem lies MUCH more with NASA's incompetence rather than Freon or non-Freon based foam. Are there REALLY only TWO kinds of foam? Is Freon now the wonder chemical, which will keep the foam on, regrow hair, and make our penises longer, and the Left is secretly conspiring to keep it from us all? Gimme a break.

They should scrap ALL the shuttles and get Burt Rattan to build them a nice new fleet of spacecraft that are MUCH cheaper and don't have to worry about reentry heat OR tiles OR falling foam.
We know for a certain fact what caused the two shuttle disasters. The first, of course, was the seals that didn't seal properly in the Challenger launch. That has now been fixed.

The second disaster is also known. It is the politically correct left that deemed it more important that the environment not be despoiled by the dastardly freon component of the original foam that was used. When did you ever hear about this problem in the over 100 shuttle launches previously? This is a slam-dunk. Case closed.

Politially correct 7. Astronauts 0.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Can you say design flaw? A better question to ask imo. But another one is why wasn't there a crash before the one that killed those seven if the problem started in 97? It just doesn't make sense. Frankly, I think that this has always happened in some degree, but we are just recognizing it.

I have been saying for the past three years or so that we shoudl replace the shuttles with a new design that takes off much easier and doesn't cause damage, but hey, don't listen to me (like last time) because I am a member of the left.
 

ncallaway

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Location
Pacific Northwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Missouri Mule said:
This is a slam-dunk. Case closed.
I must congradulate you. I didn't think anyone would have the balls to use phrasing like that since George Tenet. I applaud your effort to stand up for what you believe in, with such tenacity.

However, how you see it as the left that's causing shuttles to explode, I have no idea. It must be all the liberals at NASA that just hate life so much?

Extending it from "the left" to "political correctness" just makes your argument seem kind of absurd. As far as I can tell, the group you're actually looking to blame are the enviromentalists. Is that correct?

This may just be me, but I'm tempted to let the people at NASA do what they think is best. Basically, this is how it would go if I had any power of NASA:

ncallaway's imagination said:
Me: So...NASA...How's that moon colony going?
NASA: Yea...about that...
Me: Nevermind. I've brought you here today to discuss foam.
NASA: uh...huh...
Me: Yea, you know that stuff that's in the foam you use now? Freon.
NASA: Yea.
Me: Yea, that stuff is pretty bad for the-
NASA [under breath]: Boy, I sure hate this ncallaway guy. He's a real ass.
Me: -environment. Is it feasible to use different foam at all?
NASA: Yea, I think we can work something out.
Me: Thanks, NASA. You guys are pretty cool.
NASA [under breath]: Dammit. He didn't even ask us about our Sun Base. We've already completed that. Now we look bad.
Basically, if NASA says they can do without, I trust them. If they say: "Hey, this stuff is gonna kill off more pilots", we either need to get a new shuttle fleet (this one is getting old), or we go back to freon...

I don't think political correctness is killing astronauts. I'm sorry, I just think it's gonna be hard to convince me when you equate me to a terrorist, and say it is my agenda to kill people. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ShamMol said:
Can you say design flaw? A better question to ask imo. But another one is why wasn't there a crash before the one that killed those seven if the problem started in 97? It just doesn't make sense. Frankly, I think that this has always happened in some degree, but we are just recognizing it.

I have been saying for the past three years or so that we shoudl replace the shuttles with a new design that takes off much easier and doesn't cause damage, but hey, don't listen to me (like last time) because I am a member of the left.
The only true design flaw that I am aware of were the seals that failed on the Challenger shuttle. That was attributed to the cold weather and the type of seal that allowed the hot gases to escape. That has been fixed.

The other alleged "design flaw" is not a flaw at all UNTIL the foam that was composed of freon based material was replaced by the liberal inspired and politically correct crowd that worried more about one molecule of freon escaping into the atmosphere than the lives of seven astronaut explorers. And when one takes the time to think about it, it is completely absurd it should have ever have come to that. We have literally millions of automobiles and older refrigerators that leak their escaping freon into the atmosphere rotting in the junkyards in the United States. Where do you think all that escaped freon goes to? Right into the atmosphere; that's where. How much freon could possibly have escaped from the shuttle to have caused any measurable harm to the atmosphere? You know the answer to that question.

The argument you put forth is that a better design is anything but the shuttle. Granted that the shuttle is decades old and is getting obsolete from a number of factors is not to say that an entirely new design won't bring with a completely new set of problems that may cost the lives of more astronauts. Blaming the shuttle for the gross and outrageous irresponsibility and disregard for human life by the left is inexcusable. I blame the left for these needless deaths.

Am I wrong? And if I am wrong, show me where I am wrong.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I think the guy in post number seven pointed out where you have gone wrong quite nicely. This isn't about liberalness, or political correctness...hell, it has nothing to do with either. As he put it, it has to do with environmentalists who feel that freon destroys (which it does by the way) the ozone.

If it doesn't work, then design a new shuttle where this won't happen entering space. I am sure taht there are actually much better ideas out there that could be adopted for a large scale space shuttle. I am just saying that it isn't just one things fault, it isn't just, etc, etc. It is a nice healthy shade of gray.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And one more thing regarding my above post. We have a saying where I live. It is that we don't fix things that ain't broke. In the case of shuttle the foam was NOT a problem before the politically correct crowd decided it was.

And BTW, I live smack dab right where the Columbia shuttle came down. I knew about it before it was even broadcast on the networks. It was a clear bright sun shiny day and the thunder in the distance lasted for about 15 minutes as the astronauts fell to their horrible deaths. I remember that day well. The clean-up crew were here for several months thereafter picking up the little pieces and somewhat larger pieces that made up the shuttle Columbia. it was a completely needless loss of life. I hold the left responsible and always will.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ShamMol said:
I think the guy in post number seven pointed out where you have gone wrong quite nicely. This isn't about liberalness, or political correctness...hell, it has nothing to do with either. As he put it, it has to do with environmentalists who feel that freon destroys (which it does by the way) the ozone.

If it doesn't work, then design a new shuttle where this won't happen entering space. I am sure taht there are actually much better ideas out there that could be adopted for a large scale space shuttle. I am just saying that it isn't just one things fault, it isn't just, etc, etc. It is a nice healthy shade of gray.
Actually it IS black and white; not gray. There was no need to change that foam composition. The possible decomposing of that foam would be like a drop of water in the ocean if that much. And I've already made the argument that the next system may be even more trouble prone. We do know that the shuttle was highly reliable previous to the needless foam problem. Am I wrong? Can anyone cite even one example of pre environmentally correct foam was used that any of it came off the shuttle? If anyone can, I'd like to know about it.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Missouri Mule said:
Actually it IS black and white; not gray. There was no need to change that foam composition. The possible decomposing of that foam would be like a drop of water in the ocean if that much. And I've already made the argument that the next system may be even more trouble prone. We do know that the shuttle was highly reliable previous to the needless foam problem. Am I wrong? Can anyone cite even one example of pre environmentally correct foam was used that any of it came off the shuttle? If anyone can, I'd like to know about it.
Actually.. if you know anything about the Columbia disaster... you would know then that the piece of foam broke one of the shuttles outer shell tiles, exposing the censors to thousands of degrees of heat which shorted them out and rendered the shuttle doomed.

Also, if you knew ANYTHING.. you would know that NASA were the ones who refused to believe said piece of foam could break one of the tiles at 500 miles per hour. It took the investigating team cutting an exact size piece of foam, putting it into the same gun scientists use to determine projectile speeds of objects in high winds (sorry I forget the name of the gun.. do bear with me).. and shooting the foam at the EXACT piece that was broken on Columbia.

It was only when NASA was faced with the gaping hole did they acknowledge their being wrong, for one, and were forced to figure out the problem. The problem isn't necessarily that a piece of foam broke off... the problem is debris of any kind being able to break the tiles. Yeah it would be nice if no debris would fall off... BUT... machine against speed... it's bound to happen.

So political correctness did NOT kill Columbia's astronauts. A freak accident did. Did political correctness scrub future missions? NO.. NASA's rush back to space did. They should have tirelessly worked to have this problem corrected before ANY..I repeat ANY shuttle took flight. and THAT is case closed.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/shuttle_laser_030221.html

oh and Missouri... I'd check my facts again if I were you. and I quote from the above article

Laser shearography promised to address a concern since the earliest days of the shuttle program -- insulation peeling off and striking the tiles. Recent changes in the composition of the spray-on foam and adhesives have made it more susceptible to flaking off, experts said.


note the words... from the earliest days of the shuttle program. They've always believed it possible.... recent changes have made it more susceptible to flaking. To say it's never flaked from the shuttle before the changes... show me concrete proof to refute that argument. Because I've looked.. and I cannot find one shred to say it's NEVER fallen from the shuttle since the Shuttle program began.

Time out... nevermind don't answer that. I found the contrary... on the FIRST shuttle flight.. they found a bubble in the insulation before takeoff that was fixed without delaying.

The problem dates back to the first shuttle launch, when Daech and others were called to the launch pad because a large bubble appeared in the external tank insulation. They were able to fix that problem without delaying the launch.

http://tech.tbo.com/tech/MGA62MKJGCD.html

There ya go.. there's the proof that there's been problems with the insulation from the get go. Flaking or no flaking... a bubble eventually becomes a flaking piece of foam if left unattended. So to now borrow a phrase.

SLAM DUNK
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
debate_junkie said:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/shuttle_laser_030221.html

oh and Missouri... I'd check my facts again if I were you. and I quote from the above article

Laser shearography promised to address a concern since the earliest days of the shuttle program -- insulation peeling off and striking the tiles. Recent changes in the composition of the spray-on foam and adhesives have made it more susceptible to flaking off, experts said.


note the words... from the earliest days of the shuttle program. They've always believed it possible.... recent changes have made it more susceptible to flaking. To say it's never flaked from the shuttle before the changes... show me concrete proof to refute that argument. Because I've looked.. and I cannot find one shred to say it's NEVER fallen from the shuttle since the Shuttle program began.

Time out... nevermind don't answer that. I found the contrary... on the FIRST shuttle flight.. they found a bubble in the insulation before takeoff that was fixed without delaying.

The problem dates back to the first shuttle launch, when Daech and others were called to the launch pad because a large bubble appeared in the external tank insulation. They were able to fix that problem without delaying the launch.

http://tech.tbo.com/tech/MGA62MKJGCD.html

There ya go.. there's the proof that there's been problems with the insulation from the get go. Flaking or no flaking... a bubble eventually becomes a flaking piece of foam if left unattended. So to now borrow a phrase.

SLAM DUNK
So your argument comes down to "bird droppings." Gimme a break. It was the change of the freon based foam that caused this problem and you know it. What did I say before? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well, they fixed it, all right. They fixed seven astronauts in early graves. That's what they fixed.

Note the highlighting of your own post. That tells the tale.

And one more thing. I don't particularly appreciate your strawman argument. Did I ever defend the NASA bigwigs who refused to listen to the lower level experts? You somehow implied that I thought they might be blameless. I never made any such claim. They should put them on the next shuttle and see how they like blowing up at 3,000 miles an hour as it reenters the earth's atmosphere.
 
Last edited:

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And do you know why I know I'm right? Because if someone actually suggested that they reinstall the old freon based foam, the environmental loonies would go absolutely bonkers. They would proclaim the end of the world was nigh. It is the big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Missouri Mule said:
I hold the left responsible and always will.
Not a science major in college?

IMHO blaming politics for a scientific tragedy is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and I must say it, dumb, dumb, dumb.

When I read crappy posts like these it really saddens me that anyone can be so prejudiced in their views of the world that they will believe anything anyone says that puts down their opposition.

This is one stupid thread....
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
Not a science major in college?

IMHO blaming politics for a scientific tragedy is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and I must say it, dumb, dumb, dumb.

When I read crappy posts like these it really saddens me that anyone can be so prejudiced in their views of the world that they will believe anything anyone says that puts down their opposition.

This is one stupid thread....
Really? What do you know about the foam issue other than you don't like my direct answers? I believe what I know. The foam composition was changed. That's when the problems really began to happen. So far as I know that is an undisputed fact. And how many shuttles had foam problems prior to Columbia?

To my knowledge there is not one single shred of evidence that freon based foam ever jeopardized any shuttle launching or reentry. Am I wrong?

When you say "crappy post" that is really just another euphanism for "politically incorrect", isn't it? And it's so easy to prounounce someone as "stupid" rather than mount an informed rebuttal, isn't it?

You're rapidly descending into the old lawyer ploy. When you have the facts, argue the facts. When you don't have the facts, argue the law. When you have neither, pound on the table. Offhand, I would say you are in the table pounding stage. Would I be wrong?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
watching and smiling....
 

quietrage

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Melrose Park and Milwaukee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
hey guess what, if NASA did not believe that changing the foam was going to cause a problem then the TRAINED ENGINEERS would not have done it, and if the TRAINED ENGINEERS thought that the make up of the foam was the problem then the TRAINED ENGINEERS would have changed it. NASA would not knowingly put anyone in any extra danger.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
^We made that point, he/she didn't listen. In a welcome post he said something to the effect of the left never sees his point of view because they refuse to see facts....yeah, whatever.

Honestly, we have presented a damn good case and you just don't want to listen. I would not go nuts because the environmental impact of that would be nill, but if the NASA engineers are not saying that the non-freon is the prob, then I see no reason to have it back.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
debate_junkie said:
So political correctness did NOT kill Columbia's astronauts. A freak accident did. Did political correctness scrub future missions? NO.. NASA's rush back to space did. They should have tirelessly worked to have this problem corrected before ANY..I repeat ANY shuttle took flight. and THAT is case closed.
I'll play Devil's Advocate....

What IF that "feak accident" could have been prevented if they ignored the "freon regulation" and put the correct foam in where, although environmentally destructive, would insure the safety of the vehicle?
 

quietrage

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Melrose Park and Milwaukee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
As stated above the problem exists with both types of foam and this has happened on over 100 flights. The freak accident only happened now because the odds finally caught up the NASA and its aging shuttle.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
quietrage said:
As stated above the problem exists with both types of foam and this has happened on over 100 flights. The freak accident only happened now because the odds finally caught up the NASA and its aging shuttle.
From what was written in this thread, some will disagree...

It's been written that the "foam issue" did NOT occur until the freon was taken out of the equation. So this did NOT happen in "over 100 flights"...It's only happened since the "freon rule" was changed.
 

quietrage

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Melrose Park and Milwaukee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
debate_junkie said:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/shuttle_laser_030221.html

oh and Missouri... I'd check my facts again if I were you. and I quote from the above article

Laser shearography promised to address a concern since the earliest days of the shuttle program -- insulation peeling off and striking the tiles. Recent changes in the composition of the spray-on foam and adhesives have made it more susceptible to flaking off, experts said.


note the words... from the earliest days of the shuttle program. They've always believed it possible.... recent changes have made it more susceptible to flaking. To say it's never flaked from the shuttle before the changes... show me concrete proof to refute that argument. Because I've looked.. and I cannot find one shred to say it's NEVER fallen from the shuttle since the Shuttle program began.

Time out... nevermind don't answer that. I found the contrary... on the FIRST shuttle flight.. they found a bubble in the insulation before takeoff that was fixed without delaying.

The problem dates back to the first shuttle launch, when Daech and others were called to the launch pad because a large bubble appeared in the external tank insulation. They were able to fix that problem without delaying the launch.

http://tech.tbo.com/tech/MGA62MKJGCD.html

There ya go.. there's the proof that there's been problems with the insulation from the get go. Flaking or no flaking... a bubble eventually becomes a flaking piece of foam if left unattended. So to now borrow a phrase.

SLAM DUNK
here this is the post I ment, I just did not want to copy the entire thing because i thought that you would check previous posts but I was wrong
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
quietrage said:
As stated above the problem exists with both types of foam and this has happened on over 100 flights. The freak accident only happened now because the odds finally caught up the NASA and its aging shuttle.
You can only say that if you can prove that there was an issue well before the "freon regulations" were put into place....Can you do that?
 
Top Bottom