Sunday, July 31, 2005

Space Shuttle Need 1970's Foam?

In 1997 NASA caved in to the environmentalists and began using a new kind of foam for insulation on the space shuttle. The result? One blew up and the latest has serious issues. Nobody wants to spend much time talking about the foam switch since chlorofluorocarbons have been deemed evil. CFC's were an integral part of the foam that stayed attached through the stress of space flights over and over again. This post at Mike's Noise is a good discussion on the present situation including

The irony of this is that in 2001, the EPA exempted NASA from enforcement
of its freon regulations because an audit determined that the amount of freon
used by NASA was minuscule. But apparently NASA was more concerned with
public relations and with making sure that their policies received a nod of
approval from environmental groups. NASA's
official report on the Columbia disaster
cited a change in the foam
application process -- and not the change in the foam itself -- as the most
sensible reason for the foam to start peeling off.

Recently, a NASA official was asked in an interview about theis very issue. He did a pretty good job of being evasive. Perhaps it's time for the MSM to turn up the heat a little. This was the first question I have heard address the foam change. More than likely it has been asked and I just missed it. It appears that it needs to be asked much more frequently.

Just a thought.


At 6:16 PM, Blogger Col. Hogan said...

Bizzare how far NASA weenies will go to appease the greenie nut-jobs. Even more reason to separate space exploration from government!

At 10:55 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

What silliness. I am all for preservation and keeping our environment clean, but this is utter nonsense!

At 12:28 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 12:30 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

Good point, Ol' BC, and for once I agree with Beef (at least from a civilian/state level perspective). However, here's a question you may want to ponder...

Where in the Constitution does the government have the authority to establish an agency such as NASA in the first place? It probably could be justified under military operations if that were the purpose it served, but unless I'm mistaken, military operations are only a very small part of NASA's mission.

NASA has done some great things, for sure. I'm not denying that. But just because something is good doesn't mean the federal government has the authority to do it.


At 8:49 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Actually, RWR, you have agreed with me on several occasions, though you like to veil your agreements in rhetorical clap-trap that has nothing to do with what was actually said. Anyway, I find your other point about the constitutionality of the NASA program to be weak.

You are very much like the typical mindset of the conservative that thinks that the constitution is a bible for living in America. The thing is, the founding fathers did not foresee space exploration, nor did they foresee a great many ways in which the world has changed. Therefore, to expect a document to work for the masses over two hundred years of vast technological evolution is unreasonable at best. Just as large portions of the bible no longer work for christians, the constitution cannot be expected to cover every eventuality.

At 10:29 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

The Constitution is the law, Beed, and as such must be followed.

Private enterprise could most likely do what NASA does several times better, and probably at better cost. Why is it that people seem to insist that the federal government haas to be the one doing everything all the time?


At 10:30 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

though you like to veil your agreements in rhetorical clap-trap that has nothing to do with what was actually said.

If you refuse to face the truth about the relevance of a point I make with regard to what was actually said, that is YOUR problem, Beef, not mine.


At 11:28 AM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

You obviously have no idea what I meant. There have been instances here where you have agreed with me, then, as if in fear of sounding like you are agreeing with me, you go off into some tangential rhetorical speech that has nothing to do with what was said. If you can't see this, then that is most certainly your problem.


Post a Comment

<< Home