SMOKING GUN: ET foam treatment WAS changed due to CFCs!!!

mlorrey · Feb 27, 2006

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/8385.pdf See page 4 The above document is the smoking gun of what I've been saying: ET foam application processes were changed due to the Montreal Accord banning CFCs. It was after these changes took place that the serious problem of large foam chunk losses started happening. Here is the text, in case the document disappears: "Environmental Protection Agency In 1987, the United States and 45 other nations adopted the "Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer." Under the Protocol, class I ozone depleting compounds, such as Chlorofluorocarbon 11 known as CFC 11 -- the Freon-based blowing agent used in the production of the External Tank's foam -- was to be phased out of production by the end of 1995. Production of these compounds after 1995 is allowed only by "Essential Use Exemption" and must have Montreal Protocol approval. After extensive testing the External Tank Project proposed hydro chlorofluorocarbon HCFC 141b as the CFC 11 replacement. HCFC 141b is a blowing agent more environmental regulation compliant. At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency allowed the External Tank program to continue use of stockpiled supplies of CFC 11until HCFC 141b was certified for use on the Space Shuttle and phased in. However, in 1999, the EPA proposed to expand its regulations by implementing a ban on nonessential products that release class I ozone-depleting substances under section 610 of the Clean Air Act. Under the proposed rule, sale and distribution of BX 250, used to insulate part of the External Tank, would have been banned because it contains CFC 11. NASA asked the EPA to revise the proposed rule to provide an exemption for BX 250 and other foam containing CFC

mattblack · Feb 27, 2006

So; "Greenies legislation" killed the Columbia crew?! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

nacnud · Feb 27, 2006

No. I would say insufficent knowledge of how the new foam would behave, it wasnt thought to be a problem - maybe it was. The freon legislation wasn't brought in to effect the STS program. It was an unforseen concequence.

vt_hokie · Feb 27, 2006

Why won't this myth die already?

drwayne · Feb 27, 2006

This topic has been discussed a number of times before. I encourage a tip toe through the archives. (Best Tiny Tim voice) Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

no_way · Feb 27, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Why won't this myth die already?<hr /></blockquote> because nobody has submitted it to snopes.com yet

tomnackid · Feb 27, 2006

There is nothing in the document you cited, or any document that I am aware of, that shows that the foam detachment problems became worse after switching formulations. I have researched this claim to death and I have concluded to my own satisfaction that foam coming loose has been a problem since STS-1--hell it was a problem on the Saturn second stage! Buran got hit with a piece of debris, most likely foam, big enough to bend its vertical stabilizer. What was that sound? Oh yes it was the sound of axes being ground!

CalliArcale · Feb 27, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />because nobody has submitted it to snopes.com yet<hr /></blockquote> Alas, that doesn't kill myths. People STILL keep going on about how stupid NASA was to spend millions to develop the Space Pen while the Russians used pencils. (Truth: Fisher developed the Space Pen as an internal R&D project. The Russians didn't use pencils for the same reason NASA didn't -- they're actually hazardous in a space environment.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mlorrey · Feb 27, 2006

Because the HCFC 141b is inferior to CFC 11 as a solvent, its use to clean the tank surface and apply the foam results in inferior bonding of the foam to the tank surface and within its own structure. This reduction in bond strength exacerbated the foam delamination problem which allows air to freeze under the foam on the tank surface. While foam flaking of small pieces may have been a problem going back to the first shuttle flight, it was only after the change that large chunks of foam started falling off the tank in flight on a regular basis.

josh_simonson · Feb 27, 2006

Tens of thousands of people have died due to increasing EPA mileage requirements for cars. Cars get made lighter for efficiency and then they fare worse in crashes. Nothing new about gov't creating environmental rules that they know will kill many people, let alone cost billions. Even if the NASA administrator had testified that the montreal protocol would increase the odds of losing an orbiter by 1%, they'd have shrugged it off.

mlorrey · Feb 27, 2006

the odds actually went up by 2-3%. There have been only 28 flights since HCFC 141b's use was implemented. One loss in 28 is 3.567% risk of total loss of vehicle, where prior to STS-86, the loss rate was one in 85, a risk of 1.176, thus the increase was 2.391%. If an administrator had testified the risk would go up by 1% he'd have been lying to congress. As it was, the pre-CFC loss rate was unacceptable. The post-CFC loss rate is criminal negligence and depraved indifference.

tomnackid · Feb 27, 2006

Yes, those are definitely axes being ground. Time for the libertarian frauds to come out of their holes again.

nacnud · Feb 27, 2006

ens of thousands of people have died due to increasing EPA mileage requirements for cars. Cars get made lighter for efficiency and then they fare worse in crashes. Rubbish, put an old heavy car through the NCAP testing. I bet it won't rate more than a star.

tomnackid · Feb 27, 2006

An old heavy car with no seatbelts to boot! Car makers never stopped making big heavy cars and trucks. They have always been available if people wanted them. If anything government regs. forced car makers to provide impact info. so PRIVATE citizens could make informed CHOICES about what vehicle they want to drive. As far as I know nobody ever went to a federal prison for choosing a big car over a small one. Notice I highlighted the words PRIVATE and CHOICE. but this is getting off topic. If the foam issues of the Shuttle could be solved simply by switching back to the old foam (which NASA is allowed to do even under the Motreal agreement) they why don't they just do it???? Or is it more government conspiracy? Besides didn't the PAL ramps always use the CFC foam anyway? I'm sure I read that in one of the reports. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As it was, the pre-CFC loss rate was unacceptable. The post-CFC loss rate is criminal negligence and depraved indifference. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mlorrey, you should go back to your old signature about those who don't understand math. You should no that correlation is not cause and effect. You can say just as accurately that the accident rate went up after the glass cockpit upgrades--that doesn't mean that the instrument upgrades had anything to do with the accident. The fact is the ET has shown significant shedding in 80% of the 79 flights where there were cameras looking for it--pre new foam and post new foam. It was an accident waiting to happen, unfortunately no one really believed (or wanted to believe) it could do as much damage as we now know it can. or would you rather believe that the US government is so afraid of the slap on the wrist from violating the Montreal agreement ("OK, we'll look the other way on the whole Iraq invasion, but use freon and we'll

josh_simonson · Feb 27, 2006

Rubbish eh? http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/weight/idx.htm and Regulations such as CAFE can have impacts far beyond the cost of compliance. For CAFE, in particular, there are serious health consequences to a higher CAFE standard. In 1991, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which regulates highway safety, found that since the 1970s, downsizing vehicles was responsible for 2,000 deaths and 20,000 serious injuries. More recently, a study by John Graham of Harvard University found that increasing CAFE to 40 miles per gallon would result in an additional 1,650 deaths and 8,500 serious injuries per year. I also agree that causality has not been established on the foam. One could say that if the foam had been sprayed with a different method, this EXACT chunk would not have broken off, but other chunks may have destroyed a different flight. The main cause of the disaster was the (obviously untested and unfounded) decision by engineering and management that shedding foam did not pose a threat to the orbiter.

tomnackid · Feb 27, 2006

"I also agree that causality has not been established on the foam. One could say that if the foam had been sprayed with a different method, this EXACT chunk would not have broken off, but other chunks may have destroyed a different flight. The main cause of the disaster was the (obviously untested and unfounded) decision by engineering and management that shedding foam did not pose a threat to the orbiter." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Well put. As with Challenger complacency (it never caused a problem in the past...) and inadequate testing were the real killers. However, I must disagree with your conclusion that CAFE is responsible for driver deaths. As far as I know no American has ever been forced to drive a small, fuel efficient car. I have never heard of an automaker who was prevented from selling large sedans, station wagons, vans or trucks by the federal government. People make a choice to drive small cars--maybe for the wrong reason, or maybe in ways they were never intended to be driven, but I'm not anyones nanny. Are you saying that the government should prevent people from driving small cars for their own good? What about motorcycles? Scooters? Bicycles?

Swampcat · Feb 28, 2006

"...but I'm not anyones nanny." Spoken like a good libertarian <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

CalliArcale · Feb 28, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I have never heard of an automaker who was prevented from selling large sedans, station wagons, vans or trucks by the federal government.<hr /></blockquote> Case in point: the Hummer. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> I have to agree with you that the government cannot be held responsible for an increase in deaths due to people tending to buy smaller cars, just as they cannot be held responsible for an increase in deaths due to people buying bigger cars and rolling them. The main driver for smaller vehicles has not really been emissions, since even big hulking brutes of cars are made to low-emission standards these days. The real culprit is something which, like it or not, the US government cannot control: the cost of crude oil. As that rises, people understandably wish to cover the same number of miles with less gas. As far as the foam shedding, it's quite evident that the Montreal Accords are not to blame for Columbia. For one thing, the Shuttle has an exemption -- which it does use. (Safety-critical and life-or-death applications get a waiver. Another example of something with a CFC waiver is aerosol inhalers for asthmatics.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bedman · Feb 28, 2006

I don't know enough of the particulars to offer an opinion on the specifics of the foam delamination problems, but I am familiar enough with polyurethane foam to tell you the CO2 and Methyl Chloride blown material is CRAP compared to the old CFC stuff. Rapid oxidization, crumbling, tearing, and reaction to UV performance are all inferior.

frodo1008 · Feb 28, 2006

Mlorrey seems to have a pure political purpose here. Perhaps this particular thread should be moved over to free space, where I am certain that the conservative types (that you almost never see here) would be delighted to pat him on the back for ranting against governmental control of the environment! I have knowledge of these techniques since I started posting over there as well as here. I have (somewhat to my own regret) lost a great deal of my own innocence and naivety by dealing with such people. However, the knowledge that I have gained is in the ability to spot the various ploys used by such people. And this is such a ploy by mlorrey. The degradation in the performance of the foam material was obviously not large enough to ring alarm bells at NASA. There are literally millions of things that could at any time escalate up into a shuttle failure at any time on any flight. To me at least the problem is not the two failures of the shuttle (as terrible as they were) it is that NASA has flown this vehicle so very successfully as many times as it has flown! Good Grief people! Look at how exotic the failure that caused the Apollo 13 to loose its chance at landing on the moon was! It was a pure miracle that we didn't lose that entire flight and the wonderful astronauts on it! While I have never been into space myself, I have read enough books about it directly, and know enough science and engineering to know that placing people into the most hostile environment imaginable is a very risky business at best. The truly amazing thing is that we have been so successful at doing it at all! If NASA realized that it was going to be such a problem, then they would have used the exception to the Montréal accord that was provided them for the shuttle. What little extra CFG's that the shuttle would place into the atmosphere by the few shuttle flights there are would have no affect on the environment at all. Besides

mlorrey · Feb 28, 2006

Calli, Shuttle does not use the exemption anymore. They have completely switched to using HCFC 141b blown foam all over the ET, as was detailed in my original post. It is an inferior application process. The only people here with a political bias are those who are ardent NASA apologists and are taking their stooge duties to absurd levels of "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". Particularly those whose bread and butter is a NASA paycheck, and there are enough of them here, their opinions should be the ones immediately suspect for motives, not mine. I'm a concerned citizen who wants a space program done right, not one that wastes billions of taxpayer dollars kowtowing to unions, politicians and luddites.

josh_simonson · Feb 28, 2006

>The main driver for smaller vehicles has not really been emissions, since even big hulking brutes of cars are made to low-emission standards these days. The real culprit is something which, like it or not, the US government cannot control: the cost of crude oil. That'd be true if the price of oil/gasoline had increased during that time. But in fact real gas prices dropped during the late 70s and held relatively stable through the 80's and 90's (with an uptick over the last few years). CAFE has nothing to do with emissions, it has to do with mileage: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). So when CAFE standards are increased, manufacturers are FORCED to build cars to meet those standards. This resulted in lighter cars being built and priced such that people buy them (light, cheap cars and heavy, expensive luxury cars). If there was real demand for these lighter fuel efficient cars CAFE would not have been required to change average mileage. Many of the (mostly poorer) people that bought those discounted small cars have died because of it. The fact is that the government makes decisions that will result in many deaths as a direct result all the time. In light of that the few accidents at NASA from such things is miniscule.

frodo1008 · Feb 28, 2006

If you didn’t have some kind of political statement in mind then why the attack dog kind of lead in to your thread! You might just admit that someone who uses the phrase “SMOKING GUN" in all caps just might be taken for someone with a political agenda! If you didn’t have that kind of thing in mind then please accept my apology! Just for your information. I have been retired for the last six years, and am not employed nor ever was employed by NASA directly, although I worked for the space program by working to make Rocket Engines at Rocketdyne. The only people that currently pay my living are the Boeing Corporation retirement fund, and social security. As a matter of fact I don't know of anyone that works directly for NASA on these boards (it would be interesting to find out, just for curiosities sake). Even shuttle_guy works for Space Alliance. You continually put forth an anti governmental agenda here, that really has no bearing on what is going to happen one way or another. Most of us that support NASA also support the efforts of pure private industry, and I don't give a hoot who gets humanity into space, I just want it done. But, even someone like Burt Rutan is more than willing to admit that that even his leading efforts are going to take at least another ten years or more to get private flights to LEO. In the meantime what are patriotic Americans to do, sit around and watch the Russians and the Chinese go into space instead? By the way, I at least am one of those that would be more than happy to see NASA help the smaller start-up companies with prizes for various space achievements. None of us here that even supports NASA believe that it is perfect, but at this particular moment it is all we have! So stop carping away at it! As I stated in my post (in the section that you seem to have ignored) going into space is very risky, and is going to remain so for a long time now. If we continue to bring up every po

nibb31 · Feb 28, 2006

"Many of the (mostly poorer) people that bought those discounted small cars have died because of it. " If your statement was true, then the death rates in Europe and the rest of the world where most people drive small cars would have to be higher than in the US. As you can see here, this is not true. http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2003.htm It's actually generally the opposite. Although speed limits are higher in Europe, and roads are often twistier and narrower than in the US, the number of fatalities is generally lower. The size of the car has nothing to do with safety. Well designed small cars can be much safer than huge american SUVs with a high center of gravity and huge inertia. Off topic, I know. Sorry.

mlorrey · Feb 28, 2006

The term "smoking gun" is used by investigative journalists. I am all for a NASA that works with and encourages private space flight. I'd like them to give prizes for all sorts of things, rather than just handing out cost-plus contracts to develop things to whichever contractor has the political pull. I don't put forth an anti-government agenda, I put forth a pro-small-government agenda. I believe there are many things that government shouldn't be doing, whether it is spying on its citizens, taking their money and property at gunpoint, letting cops who murder get off scott free, or operating bureaucracies which are not authorized by the Constitution. That I am against the government doing those things does not mean I am against government entirely. Government does need to be beat down and crammed back in its constitutional box from time to time. It needs to both obey its own laws, and especially obey its most basic law, the Constitution. People who are for government solving all their problems dislike the idea of constitutional limits, and portray anyone who says government can't solve all their problems as an "anti-government extremist". I'm a military veteran. I defended this government. I swore to protect the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic. Most of all, I am very adamant that OUR tax money is spent responsibly and effectively. If government is going to claim its right to enslave me for part of the year, it better darn well have some legal and important things to spend my money on, and spend it wisely and effectively. If I sound hostile to government, it is because it is bleedingly obvious that it has no concern for spending taxpayer dollars effectively and conservatively. It gets around this by wasting more money on things alledgely to "make sure taxpayer dollars aren't wasted" than would have been wasted in the first place. It is institutional waste, and nobody can rationally pretend it doesn'

SMOKING GUN: ET foam treatment WAS changed due to CFCs!!!

mlorrey

Guest

mattblack

Guest

nacnud

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

drwayne

Guest

no_way

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

nacnud

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bedman

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

nibb31

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page