Skip to comments.
Debris Falls Off Shuttle After Launch
Sky News ^
| July 4, 2006
Posted on 07/04/2006 1:53:42 PM PDT by HAL9000
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
1
posted on
07/04/2006 1:53:44 PM PDT
by
HAL9000
To: HAL9000
2
posted on
07/04/2006 1:57:29 PM PDT
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi --- Help the "Pendleton 8' and families -- http://www.freerepublic.com/~normsrevenge/)
To: HAL9000
3
posted on
07/04/2006 2:03:33 PM PDT
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: HAL9000
$500 fine for littering in Florida.
4
posted on
07/04/2006 2:05:26 PM PDT
by
clintonh8r
(Jack Murtha? Not in my Marine Corps!)
To: HAL9000
It could all be fixed if the friggin NASA people would go against the Greenies and go BACK to manufacturing the foam the old way.
HArrumph.
5
posted on
07/04/2006 2:07:52 PM PDT
by
Blueflag
(Res ipsa loquitor)
To: Blueflag
Can you imagine the greenies with their calculators trying to get a count of carbon units expended during the launch?
6
posted on
07/04/2006 2:15:46 PM PDT
by
Thebaddog
(Labs Rules! Brilliant!)
To: Blueflag
I didn't know this was a "new" enviro friendly foam.
To: 12th_Monkey
Thanks to NASA's Golden.....klintonista butt boy......the shuttle has gone green as much as possible.
At one point they were actually bragging about it.....guess those days are over.
8
posted on
07/04/2006 2:25:55 PM PDT
by
OldFriend
(I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.....and My Heart to the Soldier Who Protects It.)
To: Thebaddog
Before anybody reminds you that there are no carbon units with an oxygen/hydrogen reaction, IIRC they use kerosene to light the thing off.
What are the solid boosters using for fuel?
(And is it true that the only reason the solid boosters were used is that they're made in Walter Mondale's district?)
9
posted on
07/04/2006 2:26:15 PM PDT
by
wolfpat
(To connect the dots, you have to collect the dots.)
To: Blueflag
Agreed. I mentioned in an earlier thread that I thought the problem originated when they made the EPA happy and stopped using foam made with a freon based propellant.
Blasted liberal environmentals.
10
posted on
07/04/2006 2:31:11 PM PDT
by
pctech
To: 12th_Monkey
"I didn't know this was a "new" enviro friendly foam."That's what caused the problems on the last one, but like good "earth citizens", we're still using it.
11
posted on
07/04/2006 2:32:18 PM PDT
by
Slump Tester
( What if I'm pregnant Teddy? Errr-ahh Calm down Mary Jo, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it)
To: Thebaddog
Can you imagine the greenies with their calculators trying to get a count of carbon units expended during the launch? Isn't the Shuttle an H2+O2 rocket? So everything the greenies would have done to their calculators after turning them on would have been wrong. Sure, their was lots of harder to compute carbon burned prior to launch to make it possible, but as for the launch itself the calculator had it right when it was first turned on.
To: wolfpat
The solid boosters uses a mixture of liquid polysulfide rubber, Ammonium Perchlorate, and a little powdered Aluminum. A curing agent is added to the mix before pouring and it cures to the consistency of a pencil eraser.
To: Blueflag
It could all be fixed if the friggin NASA people would go against the Greenies and go BACK to manufacturing the foam the old way. Not true. Snopes really should have an article on this by now. The foam that destroyed the Columbia was BX-250, a freon based foam. Additionally, foam fell off of 80% of flights that were observed (low resolution videos) by the CAIB. Foam fell off of the orbiter before most parts of the external fuel tank had their foam changed to non-freon based foam.
I would say that the shuttle probably sheds less foam that it ever has, before and after the EPA regulation change.
14
posted on
07/04/2006 2:46:18 PM PDT
by
burzum
(Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.--Adm. Rickover)
To: Vinnie_Vidi_Vici
You gotta love this forum. Ask any question, and somebody knows the answer.
15
posted on
07/04/2006 2:48:01 PM PDT
by
wolfpat
(To connect the dots, you have to collect the dots.)
To: wolfpat
I'm smart for a dog, because I'm someone's dog. Labs Rule!
16
posted on
07/04/2006 2:50:33 PM PDT
by
Thebaddog
(Labs Rules! Brilliant!)
To: HAL9000
Go back to asbestos instead of polycrapola!
17
posted on
07/04/2006 2:50:37 PM PDT
by
TRY ONE
(NUKE the unborn gay whales!)
To: HAL9000
What a waste of taxpayer dollars....the shuttle program and the UN in NY should both be done away with.
18
posted on
07/04/2006 2:51:12 PM PDT
by
cowdog77
To: Vinnie_Vidi_Vici
Main engines can't be pure H2 + O2 - you can see the fire.
19
posted on
07/04/2006 2:53:40 PM PDT
by
patton
(...in spit of it all...)
To: wolfpat
(And is it true that the only reason the solid boosters were used is that they're made in Walter Mondale's district?) No, the Shuttle wouldn't be able to achieve orbit without them.
20
posted on
07/04/2006 2:54:28 PM PDT
by
Ichneumon
(Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson