I thought this was well known?
by
stefanlasiewski
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Right, foam has hit the wing before, the wings have been breached before. It was mentioned several times after the Columbia disaster. I remember listening to an 'expert' on NPR (Can't remember his name) saying the previous occurances happened without insident, and was why NASA wasn't pursuing the foam theory. Pursue the more likely scenarios first.
The Associated Press is pushing this news as if it was a big revelation, but there doesn't seem to be anything new in this report.
Am I missing something?
-- "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Inform yourself: life ain't black and white
by
ianscot
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Feeding the trolls, I know, but Hello -- for the rest of us, those aren't mutually exclusive options. It isn't "save lives or protect the environment," as stark oppositional choices. And in this case, your black and white ideology is causing you to pile onto a political tactic rather than seeking the truth.
A nice synopsis of the tank types, the flights they were used on, and so on:
The tank being used on Columbia was the older style. NASA has gotten exemptions from the EPA to use the old style tanks and foam. They happened to use an old one on this launch.
"(NASA) said the piece that broke off and hit the wing of the Columbia was PROBABLY THE OLD FOAM, NOT THE NEW, MORE TROUBLE-PLAGUED MATERIAL.
When it had trouble with the replacement foam, NASA applied to the Environmental Protection Agency for an exemption from the CFC ban, saying, 'no viable alternative has been identified.' It gained the exemption in 2001, and still uses that foam in a few spots on the shuttle fleet."
--ANDREW C. REVKIN (NYT 2/6/03)
Meanwhile, astronauts have mentioned the problems with the foam since the earliest days of the program:
During the early missions, astronauts even complained over their cockpit radios during liftoffs about falling white-colored insulation from the external fuel tank hitting the shuttle's windows, according to a 1983 NASA report. It said spray-on foam insulation flying off the external tank could cause significant damage to the shuttle's heat-resistant tiles.
Engineers developed at least two procedures -- shaving foam insulation and venting it with thousands of tiny pinpricks -- to reduce the amount of insulation flying off the external tank.
But NASA stated three years ago that "venting... is only a temporary solution to the problem until a new type of foam can be formulated and applied."
The old foam is still being used.
...After Columbia's first flight in April 1981, NASA engineers said they would have had a difficult time clearing it for flight had they known in advance the insulation breakaways would produce such a debris shower.
NASA's been working on this problem since before the first launch. Gee, it doesn't seem like a stark "environment vs. people" choice they made, does it?
You might want to consider your sources before you start assuming everything falls into the neat little cubbyholes your politics make you think of. Fox "News" has run a "special" claiming that the moon launches were all a big conspiracy; maybe that's not the best source for news about NASA. You think? (Meanwhile do we hear any liberals ranting about this all being Bush's fault? They seem to actually give a crap about the problem, rather than just vying to score faked-up political points.)
-- "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Re:Older, more effective foam was replaced
by
wayward_son
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The Earth may indeed be getting warmer. (And there is still debate over this) If it is, it is seriously unlikely that it is caused by man.
Guess what, the climate has changed MANY times in Earth's history, long before man was around. Have you ever been to the sandhills of the Carolinas? These sandhills are about 100mi (160km) inland. How'd they get there? Once upon a time, that was the beach. Likewise, what is now the beach was once considerably inland during the last ice age.
If the earth wants to heat up or cool down, there is truly very little we can do about it. Man made "greenhouse gasses" are relatively minor compared to naturally occuring "greenhouse gasses" coming from volcanoes and forest fires. It's a fart in a windstorm.
I could go on but I won't. There's still lots of debate, and this is as it should be, but global warming has not been "disproved" except in the minds of politically motivated ideologues.
The global environmental movement is as politically motivated as any right-wing ideologue. To say otherwise is terribly naive.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, foam has hit the wing before, the wings have been breached before. It was mentioned several times after the Columbia disaster. I remember listening to an 'expert' on NPR (Can't remember his name) saying the previous occurances happened without insident, and was why NASA wasn't pursuing the foam theory. Pursue the more likely scenarios first.
The Associated Press is pushing this news as if it was a big revelation, but there doesn't seem to be anything new in this report.
Am I missing something?
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
A nice synopsis of the tank types, the flights they were used on, and so on:
The tank being used on Columbia was the older style. NASA has gotten exemptions from the EPA to use the old style tanks and foam. They happened to use an old one on this launch.
Meanwhile, astronauts have mentioned the problems with the foam since the earliest days of the program:
NASA's been working on this problem since before the first launch. Gee, it doesn't seem like a stark "environment vs. people" choice they made, does it?
You might want to consider your sources before you start assuming everything falls into the neat little cubbyholes your politics make you think of. Fox "News" has run a "special" claiming that the moon launches were all a big conspiracy; maybe that's not the best source for news about NASA. You think? (Meanwhile do we hear any liberals ranting about this all being Bush's fault? They seem to actually give a crap about the problem, rather than just vying to score faked-up political points.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The Earth may indeed be getting warmer. (And there is still debate over this) If it is, it is seriously unlikely that it is caused by man.
Guess what, the climate has changed MANY times in Earth's history, long before man was around. Have you ever been to the sandhills of the Carolinas? These sandhills are about 100mi (160km) inland. How'd they get there? Once upon a time, that was the beach. Likewise, what is now the beach was once considerably inland during the last ice age.
If the earth wants to heat up or cool down, there is truly very little we can do about it. Man made "greenhouse gasses" are relatively minor compared to naturally occuring "greenhouse gasses" coming from volcanoes and forest fires. It's a fart in a windstorm.
I could go on but I won't. There's still lots of debate, and this is as it should be, but global warming has not been "disproved" except in the minds of politically motivated ideologues.
The global environmental movement is as politically motivated as any right-wing ideologue. To say otherwise is terribly naive.