Columbia disaster caused by Political Correctness

www.investors.com.../2

I wonder why this story isn't getting more airplay. The Main Tank was changed prior to the Columbia flight, removing Freon from the foaming process to make it more "environmentally friendly". Some critics state that this makes the new method 10 times more susceptible to damage and breakway of the foam than the old method.

THIS is why it had not been a problem until now...

If I can remember Freon is a CFC gas. More envirometally friendly foaming agents use Cyclopropane (I can't quite remember, but it think that's what it is). This does explain why previous flights didn't have this foam problem. If it's safer, I think it would be wise to revert back to Freon, even if it has an enviromental impact just for the time being until we can replace the shuttles.

Actually, every shuttle has had damange due to falling foam of the main tank, they were just lucky enough that none of the damange was severe enough to cause a problem. There is another thread on here somewhere that I can't find that talks about past damage of shuttles, with a fantastic graphic showing all the damage to tiles, etc that have been done over the years. This is not a new problem at all.

Originally posted by soulforge
I wonder why this story isn't getting more airplay.

Because it is a fabricated story by conservatives to put those concerned for the environment in a negative light.

Originally posted by sensfan
Actually, every shuttle has had damange due to falling foam of the main tank, they were just lucky enough that none of the damange was severe enough to cause a problem. There is another thread on here somewhere that I can't find that talks about past damage of shuttles, with a fantastic graphic showing all the damage to tiles, etc that have been done over the years. This is not a new problem at all.

There is no way to know that.
At least the amounts of foam.
This launch was photographed and videoed, from more cameras, at more angles than any other.
We DO know that the recipe was changed, Then people died.
But thats all we know..
Until more studies are done, I think it should be considered..It would be ignorant not to do so..

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by soulforge
I wonder why this story isn't getting more airplay.

Because it is a fabricated story by conservatives to put those concerned for the environment in a negative light.

This article was written in 1997 for an educational site which is a part of NASA.GOV

quest.arc.nasa.gov...

So, on the NASA website, the change is mentioned in an eductional resource.

Just because a conservative's mouth is open, it doesn't mean he's lying. This is a fact, not a conservative conspiracy to kill trees and pollute water.

If it is caused by anything, it is by not submitting the changed materials through tests to determine whether it is as good and allowing it to pass just like that. A deterioration in quality may come from a change to a less polluting substance, but that doesn't mean that the decision of change the substance (environmental concerns) is what caused the accident, instead it is the decision to allow it to pass with or without testing. I do not think it is impossible to manufacture insulation with the same quality without freon. This was known since 1997, just as it was known prior to the launch of the Challenger that the rubber O-rings were not suitable for launch in low temperatures. Yet in both cases apparently they proceeded without addressing the issue thoroughly. It is NOT fact at all that environmentalism caused the disaster, that is OPINION.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Simon666]

Your animal for wanting to violate EPA!

Actual EPA and its constituents, lobbyist, and various others make their living off of destroying the environment.