Old Foam/New Foam??

[MBA_UIU]

I heard on the news this mourning that NASA changed the formula used in the foam because it was harmful to the atmosphere, is this true? The person talking also said that there were no problems with the old foam, only this new foam. I wonder just how much damage this foam could have been doing, and is it enough damage not to allow this foam to be reused for the last 28 odd missions? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[spaceinator]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/11/121741.shtml

 

[drwayne]

This has been covered a number of times in a number of threads. Two important points<br /><br />(1) The "old" foam shed too<br />(2) The "old" foam is still used in difficult to cover areas, including the area that doomed Columbia. (i.e. said another way, the piece of foam that struck Columbia was "old" foam.<br /><br />Wayne<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[MBA_UIU]

The spoke person said that the old foam did shed but in nowhere near the volume that this new foam does. He also made the same comment that I found of the website provided above. <br /><br />“NASA notes that it is impossible to ascertain with certainty whether it was the old or the new foam that caused the recent disaster...”<br /><br />He said that he was his belief, and that many of the others, that it was not the old foam that came off. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

The area that the foam came from was one of the areas that was put in by hand with the old foam.<br /><br />Don't fall for people who put out stories to further an agenda.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[pagoo]

My question is when did NASA begin to contract out the foam installation? Didn't NASA at one time do all or most of the construction themselves - before the government thought it "cheaper" to outsource it?

 

[drwayne]

Contractors have had a key role in doing the work since I can remember. My father was a contractor (IBM) on the construction of the Saturn 5 Instrument Unit when I was quite young.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/11/121741.shtml<br /><br />Yea, this website has no political ax to grind! (He said with heavy sarcasm!)

 

[Grok]

After all these years, you would think that we could have found some material to replace foam altogether. Isn't there any type of spray on material that might withstand the heat?

 

[jonschoen]

What I am wondering is this... It seems like the much touted "Space Shuttle" is made of silly putty, in a manner of speaking. I mean, come on! Tiles, Foam, Fabric! I mean, we are not talking about the Wright Flyer, we are talking year 2005, 21st century. Isn't there a better way to make a shuttle than by lining the bottom with what are essentially, bricks!? It seems so primitive. And, yes, space flight is inherently dangerous, but 2 out of 5 shuttles destroyed? 2% failure rate may not seem like much, but would you fly if you knew that 2 out of every 100 flights would end in disaster. Would you drive to work under such conditions? Nasa needs to get it's head out of it's A&^%( and let private Enterprise lead the way. Take a look at the robotic Mars Missions, all told, including USSR (Russia, sorry!) and the USA, about 50% of the Mars missions have been lost along the way, crashed, or exploded on liftoff. I'm a big space exploration fan, but we really need to learn how to succeed more often. An entirely new shuttle needs to be built, even if it means we don't go into space for the next 10 years.

 

[drwayne]

Your pretty much stuck with either an inulating approach (which, on the plus side is lighter, and on the negative side is lighter) or ablative materials (which are not neccessarily reusable and heavier).<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[najab]

(Obligatory snide comment) Grok, the foam <b>is</b> sprayed on. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />