The foam had been causing problems since mid eighties.
The NASA was given exempt on the freon ban (of 1997?), and even thought they did change the formula, the pieces of foam believed to have caused the Columbia disaster were using the old formula (with freon).
Well, Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert seems to believe that the foam in question was based on freon. See the last letter from
3/3/03 C&E News Letters . He also states that
falling foam has known to been problem since 1988, far before any freon-bans.
And NASA was given exempt from the freon-ban by the EPA. The reason given by the Lockheed for changing the foam was the scarcity of the freon due the international treaty signed in Montreal banning the use of freon. So the stated reason for the change was economics, not environmentalism.
If the freon was critical, of cource they would have continued to use it.
Nice spin thou, "it was not NASA's fault, it was those damn environmentalists." See my previous post(and reply) on for bit more info
Well, the NASA was given exempt from the freon-ban by the EPA. The reason given by the Lockheed (I am not sure, the foam could be made by different subcontractor) for changing the foam was the scarcity of the freon due the international treaty signed in Montreal
banning the use of freon. So it was economics, not environmentalism.
And what it's worth, Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert seems to believe that the foam in question was
based on freon. See the last letter from
3/3/03 C&E News Letters. It seems that they use several different foam formulas, and the problem is not with the use/non-use of freon.
Sounds to me that some people at NASA are trying to do damage control, for the problems caused by the falling foam insulation have been known at least since 1988. And the freon controversy is six years old, that is a long time to sit on a problem.
Nice spin thou, "it was not NASA's fault, it was those damn environmentalists." And the media is biting.
Slashdot Mirror
You could not be more wrong.
The foam had been causing problems since mid eighties.
The NASA was given exempt on the freon ban (of 1997?), and even thought they did change the formula, the pieces of foam believed to have caused the Columbia disaster were using the old formula (with freon).
And NASA was given exempt from the freon-ban by the EPA. The reason given by the Lockheed for changing the foam was the scarcity of the freon due the international treaty signed in Montreal banning the use of freon. So the stated reason for the change was economics, not environmentalism. If the freon was critical, of cource they would have continued to use it.
Nice spin thou, "it was not NASA's fault, it was those damn environmentalists." See my previous post(and reply) on for bit more info
And what it's worth, Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert seems to believe that the foam in question was based on freon. See the last letter from 3/3/03 C&E News Letters. It seems that they use several different foam formulas, and the problem is not with the use/non-use of freon.
Sounds to me that some people at NASA are trying to do damage control, for the problems caused by the falling foam insulation have been known at least since 1988. And the freon controversy is six years old, that is a long time to sit on a problem.
Nice spin thou, "it was not NASA's fault, it was those damn environmentalists." And the media is biting.