Wingnut: "The EPA caused the Columbia accident."

[trotsky]

A whine I heard from a freeper was something about the EPA mandating a freon-free foam for the shuttle, and the replacement foam was more brittle. And so that foam being more brittle is why it broke off during launch, damaged the wing, and doomed the crew.

Doing a few searches all I can find is some right-wing echo chamber articles all repeating each other. I did find one contradiction to their "facts," though. Many places claim that the doomed Columbia flight was the first one with the new foam. That's a lie, because the new foam started being used in 1997.

What else I've found is that the EPA grants exceptions for many different uses - NASA and the military included - and so testing of the new foam, if found to be inferior, should have made it easy to get an exception.

But does anyone have any other info on this?

[trotsky]

1. Shameless self-kick

to put it back on the first page.

[On the Road]

2. Glad You Kicked It

I missed it the first time around. Always good to know what the RW is thinking. And you are probably correct, the claim smells suspicious.

[lapfog_1]

3. Considering the TONS of environmental pollutants

that surround every shuttle launch, I doubt seriously that the
EPA would have been involved with determining the type of insulation
used on the external fuel tank. Not to mention that insulation failure
had caused tile damage on previous flights... and the NASA folks
in charge of the shuttle's thermal protection systems absolutely
got whatever they wanted (tile damage is one of the most serious
problems, not only from a safety standpoint, but from a cost and
shuttle service standpoint).

The EPA and NASA have been concerned for years about the amount of
high atmosphere pollutants that the shuttle produces, but, as of yet,
don't have any substitutes.

I can't debunk this directly, but it sounds wrong.

Just a bit of history... I worked for NASA for about 10 years.
One of the Columbia astronauts was a former co-worker at my
facility. The center where I worked developed the thermal tile
protection system.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. It's Nonsense

Those are rigid polyurethane foams. The most current, nonproprietary iterations are pentane blown foams. The difference of performance between pentane blown and freon blown foams are within the error of the testing methods.

Even newer formulations are water-blown. Those don't perform quite as well, but since water is cheaper than pentane, there's also a cost differential that offsets the more expensive chemical formula.

All that being said, the foam on the space shuttle is still freon blown. It's based upon F113 rather than F11, which is less rich in fluorine atoms and has a lower vapor pressure, so doesn't get as high into the atmosphere, making it more ozone friendly. F113 is little more expensive, so the cost penalty is there, but there is no measurable performance difference in either weight or insulating capacity.

I work for a company that makes these foams, and i've consulted on their manufacturing process to optimize the formula, reduce waste, maximize yield, and minimize cycle times. So, i know what i'm talking about.

The wingnut is an idiot, a liar, or both.
The Professor

[trotsky]

5. Thanks, Professor.

Makes a lot of sense. Do you know if that kind of analysis is available on the web somewhere?

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Sorry, I Don't Know

My information is from within the company i mentioned, and i'm not at liberty to disseminate that data.

However, i would do a Google on "rigid urethane foam insulation". Some of the big boys (Dow, UC, etc.) might have technical bulletins on their websites that would show up that way.
The Professor

[One_Life_To_Give]

8. Foam's and Tanks?

Professor

I recall reading somewhere that the tank contractor had problems initially with the F113 foam on the tank. But those issues had been resolved prior to the new foam being approved for use on a actual mission.

Although I think the point of the argument was the the F11 foam was more forgioving of application process errors than the F113 foam.

[Canuckistanian]

7. EPA or not, there are specifications to follow

Even if the EPA mandated a different formula, the material would still have to conform to a set criteria of performance standards, strength being just one of them.

If there is any fault, it rests with the engineers who specified the performance parameters, not the EPA.

[AirAmFan]

9. I vaguely remember hearing that anti-Cuba politics may have been responsible

for the disaster. I could be confusing this with another incident where tiles came loose, but I recall reading that the adhesive holding down the Columbia's tiles had recently been switched. It seems that the original, highly effective adhesive relied on some ingredients of Cuban origin. When a more politically correct adhesive was switched in, the tragedy ensued.

Does anyone else recall hearing this?

Was the Columbia launched from Florida, where anti-Castro politics is a strong force?

[AirAmFan]

10. Here's some kind of message board with what I remember about Cuban

sourcing for an adhesive ingredient:

From http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/2003-February/007572.html

"Joint Congressional Hearings on NASA

Someone raised the question of what firm supplied the urea used in the shuttle tile adhesive. He said that this used to be supplied by a Canadian firm, but that because the firm was acquired by another company that did business with Cuba, NASA had to stop buying the chemical from that firm. He wanted to know if this could have caused a decrease in quality."