I've been waiting for some mention of the possible role the CFC, ozone hole, scare may have played in the destruction of Columbia and NASA's subsequent problems. What I've read is that NASA had an adequate foam system that used freon in its production. Though the amount of freon used by NASA had negligible environmental impact, they went to a new formulation. The first non-freon launch, STS 87, had unprecedented thermal tile damage from the foam. On the one hand, it makes no sense for NASA to have given up using freon because of the small amount. On the other hand, NASA has beat the scare drum (particularly ozone hole monitoring) as a budget boosting tool for years. Check out
http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2003/08/19/National/ Lost-In.Space-449260.shtml (yes, I noticed he confused hydrogen and nitrogen) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_foam_ft_030506.html
I realize that this is by no means settled. And I realize that flights subsequent to STS 87 had better foam behavior. What surprises me is that there is so little mention of the role freon replacement may have played in killing Columbia and, it now appears, the shuttle program itself. Jim
Kim wrote:
Sorry to point out the obvious, but NASA has had 2 1/2 years and a whole lot of money already to "try and fix the problem." If it can't be done, admit it and throw in the towel. Now.