Shuttle Foam Loss Linked to EPA Regs

[Klaus]

Shuttle Foam Loss Linked to EPA Regs

Thursday, July 28, 2005



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 February 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://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/28/93055.shtml (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/28/93055.shtml)

[Klaus]

Did Environmental Regulations Cause Space Shuttle Tragedies?

Written By: William L. Anderson
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: September 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Most people can remember intimate details of what they were doing when they first heard the space shuttle Challenger had exploded. To compound the tragedy, millions of schoolchildren across the country watched the event in shocked amazement.

The ?teacher in space? effort NASA hoped would be a public relations boon to the shuttle program instead exploded with the shuttle as teacher Christa McCauliffe of New Hampshire was among the seven astronauts who perished when the shuttle disintegrated miles above the Earth.

NASA went on to record many successful space flights after the Challenger disaster. Then the program once again was shocked into reality when Columbia blew up in flames just minutes before landing, killing all seven astronauts aboard.

Even more depressing: The roots of both disasters were planted in the federal government?s environmental policies. Misguided policies not only killed 14 U.S. astronauts, but killed them in a most horrible and public way.

Faulty Foam Mandated by EPA

As recent news reports have pointed out, the wreck of the Columbia was almost certainly due to a chunk of insulating foam prying loose and hitting some heat-protecting tiles, leaving the spacecraft vulnerable to intense heat upon re-entry into the Earth?s atmosphere.

That is all the mainstream news--and NASA--have been willing to report. What they have not said is that the foam in use at the time was a substitute, replacing a material that had previously worked well but contained Freon, a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned because of the ozone depletion scare.

As Cato Institute adjunct scholar Steven Milloy reports, NASA could have sought an exemption. Freon, after all, is inert and nontoxic, and its connection to ozone depletion is tenuous at best. However, having been burned by EPA once before, NASA succumbed to what Milloy calls ?PC foam.?

Milloy writes, ?PC foam was an immediate problem. The first mission with PC foam resulted in 11 times more damaged thermal tiles on Columbia than the previous mission with Freon-based foam.?

The damage was obvious and quite severe. Milloy writes that following the 1997 Columbia mission, ?more than 100 tiles were damaged beyond repair, well over the normal count of 40.?

Milloy points out EPA did in fact exempt NASA from the CFC reduction requirement in 2001, but NASA decided to continue using the ?environment-friendly? foam it by then had been using for several years.

Exemptions Denied

The Challenger explosion occurred in January 1986. As nearly everyone familiar with the catastrophe knows, a set of O-rings that was supposed to keep hot gases trapped in the rocket carrying the shuttle failed, with the fuel quickly leaking out and igniting into a fireball shortly after takeoff.

It was an unusually cold morning at Cape Canaveral, too cold for the O-rings to perform properly. That is well known. What most people do not know is that the material used to make the O-rings was a substitute, replacing a product EPA had banned because it contained asbestos.

The original O-rings used between the rocket joints came from an over-the-counter putty that had been used safely and effectively for a long time. However, in its war against the use of asbestos anywhere, anytime, EPA forbade NASA to use the product at all. NASA sought an exemption, which EPA refused, ultimately leading to the Challenger disaster 17 years later.

A Recurring Theme

In normal situations, this would be a scandal of epic proportions: By requiring the use of unsafe materials, a government agency caused the very public deaths of 14 individuals. Had a private firm permitted such unsafe working conditions, the situation would merit a New York Times investigative report.

Scientifically unsound environmental policy can be disastrous. Granted, we are talking about the lives of ?only? 14 people, compared to the hundreds of thousands who have died of malaria following the banning of DDT, which once effectively killed the mosquitoes that carry the disease.

But whether we speak of 14 astronauts, or hundreds of thousands of people in a remote African nation, we speak of the same thing: death by environmentalism.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12801

[KenP]

The Clinton family is to blame for all our ills.:mad:

[deserth3]

Mostly you just have to be careful when there are cigars around.:D

[Aubs]

Kind of extreme there. DDT was still used, but it became so ineffective that most just pollutes the environment. There are other, more expensive, yet more effective methods of insect control. DDT was kinda bad for people anyway, being an organochlorine which accumlated in fatty tissues. That meant that we ended up with high concentration in our bodies. I was born in 1984, 14 after DDT's death in the US, but I probably have a significant amount in my body left over from it's useage.

Anyway, on the subject, if the freon based foam worked, they should have continued using it. I'll admit that the foam issue is a problem. But the shuttle program is really a billion problems that are just waiting to appear. Something new could happen on any launch, and then that would be the focus of attention. Basically, space travel, especially shuttle travel, is a dangerous proposition. There are always risks, but they're acceptable risks. The foam is obviously an acceptable risk. NASA could risk losing the entire shuttle program if this shuttle fails. I think the foam is just an issue in the press. NASA has many other systems to worry about, and the foam is probably one of their lessor concerns.

[Agriv8r]

I think the foam is just an issue in the press. NASA has many other systems to worry about, and the foam is probably one of their lessor concerns.

what they need is for someone to chip a nail on a seat support or maybe something a little less dramatic than a chipped nail to become the new media focus for today.:rolleyes:

[Klaus]

No - What they need to do is require the head of the EPA to ride on the shuttle! There might be a change of heart on safety issues and EPA exemptions.

[KenP]

2:38 today. I bet those brave astronauts have more butterflies than normal right now.

God speed.

[KenP]

14 minutes.

[Klaus]

Space Shuttle Discovery Blasts Off on Fourth of July Launch

Tuesday , July 04, 2006
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.

In a majestic U.S. Independence Day liftoff, Discovery and its crew of seven blasted into orbit Tuesday on the first space shuttle launch in a year, flying over objections from those within NASA who argued for more fuel-tank repairs.

NASA's first-ever Fourth of July manned launch came after two weather delays and a new crack in foam insulation on the fuel tank. Shuttle managers said early video images showing small pieces of debris breaking away were not troubling.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said of the launch: "They don't get much better than this."

It was Griffin who chose to go ahead with the launch over concerns from the space agency's safety officer and chief engineer about foam problems that have dogged the agency since Columbia was doomed by a flyaway chunk of insulation 3 1/2 years ago.

Discovery thundered away from its seaside pad at 2:38 p.m EDT (1838 GMT).

About three minutes later, three or four pieces of debris were seen flying off the tank, and another popped off a bit later, said shuttle program manager Wayne Hale. Discovery was so high by then that there wasn't enough air to accelerate the pieces into the shuttle and cause damage, he said.

"That is the very raw, preliminary data," Hale said. "It will be a while before we get a complete picture of what happened during the ascent."
Hale and others on the launch management team were in a jubilant mood over the smooth liftoff.

"No, we did not plan to launch on the Fourth of July, but it sure did work out to be great to launch on Independence Day," said Hale, who was wearing a patriotic tie.

Commander Steven Lindsey, an Air Force fighter pilot, was at Discovery's controls and aiming for a Thursday linkup with the international space station.

"Discovery's ready, the weather's beautiful, America is ready to return the space shuttle to flight. So good luck and Godspeed, Discovery," launch director Mike Leinbach said just before liftoff.

"I can't think of a better place to be here on the Fourth of July," radioed Lindsey. "For all the folks on the Florida east coast, we hope to very soon get you an up-close and personal look at the rocket's red glare."
It was unclear for a while Monday whether Discovery would fly at all.

A slice of foam, not much bigger than a crust of bread, fell off an expansion joint on the external fuel tank as the spacecraft sat on the launch pad. Shuttle managers concluded Monday night after intensive engineering analysis that the remaining foam on that part of the tank was solid.

Engineers said the piece ? 3 inches long (7.6 centimeters) and just one-tenth of an ounce ? was too small to pose a threat even if it had come off during launch and smacked the shuttle. Inspectors devised a long pole with a camera to inspect the joint and found no evidence of further damage. NASA also made sure there was no excessive ice buildup at that spot Tuesday.

The fallen foam, albeit harmless, added to the tension already surrounding this mission.

NASA's chief engineer and top-ranking safety official objected two weeks ago to the 12-day mission without eliminating lingering dangers from foam loss, considered probable and potentially catastrophic.

They were overruled by shuttle managers and, ultimately, Griffin. He stressed the need to get on with building the half-done, long-overdue space station before the shuttles are retired in 2010 to make way for a moonship, per President George W. Bush's orders.

Griffin said he welcomed the debate over Discovery's launch and acknowledged that the space agency plays the odds with every shuttle liftoff.

"If foam hits the orbiter and doesn't damage it, I'm going to say ho-hum because I know we're going to release foam. The goal is to make sure that the foam is of a small enough size that I know we're not going to hurt anything," Griffin said in a weekend interview with The Associated Press.
"It's hardly the only thing that poses a risk to a space shuttle mission," he said.

If photos during launch or the flight show serious damage to Discovery, the crew could move into the space station. Then a risky shuttle rescue ? fraught with its own problems ? would have to be mounted. The rescue ship, Atlantis, would face the same potential foam threat at launch. NASA also worked on a possible plan for flying Discovery back to Earth unmanned if necessary.

Many have speculated that if anything happens to Discovery or its crew, the shuttle program could end with this mission, and plans for moon and Mars exploration could be put in jeopardy.

In its flight last July, Discovery experienced dangerous foam loss, though the chunk was smaller than one that slammed into Columbia's left wing, and it missed Discovery altogether.

Just like a year ago, more than 100 cameras and radar were trained on Discovery at liftoff to spot any foam shedding. The intensive picture-taking continued with on-board cameras and the astronauts snapping zoom-in shots upon reaching orbit.

NASA figures it will be nearly a week before it can decisively say whether any debris hit Discovery during launch.

Last July, cameras caught a 1-pound (0.5 kilo) chunk two minutes after liftoff, despite extensive repairs that came after the Columbia disaster. The big piece of foam came off an area untouched in the wake of the tragedy. Smaller pieces popped off other parts of the 154-foot tank.
Over the past year, NASA has removed foam from the location of last year's largest foam loss, saying it represented the biggest aerodynamic change to the shuttle in 25 years of flight. Engineers deemed the foam there unnecessary.

Shuttle managers put off repairs to another potentially dangerous area of the tank, foam wedges to insulate the metal brackets that hold pressurized lines in place. The foam prevents ice and frost from forming on the brackets once the tank is filled with super-cold fuel.

Managers said they wanted to make one major change at a time. The space agency's chief engineer disagreed as did the chief safety officer, saying they would rather take the extra six months to fix the problem before launching.

Griffin contends NASA doesn't have time to spare with the shuttles set to be phased out in 2010.

One of the seven crew on Discovery is a German, Thomas Reiter of the European Space Agency, who will move into the space station for a half-year stay, joining the American and Russian there already.

Reiter will bring the size of the station crew to three for the first time since 2003.

Besides commander Lindsey and Reiter, Discovery is carrying pilot Mark Kelly; Michael Fossum and Piers Sellers, who will conduct at least two spacewalks at the station; and Lisa Nowak and Stephanie Wilson.

Beginning Wednesday, they will survey use a 50-foot (15-meter) inspection boom to view the shuttle for damage. They also will make repairs to the space station and deliver much-needed supplies.