Re: OT shuttle problem
- From: "Justin Wigg" <justinwigg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Jul 2005 00:20:32 -0700
Ken Biggles wrote:
> The old formulation adhered to the main tank. During the Clinton
> Admin, they changed the formulation to be more environmentally
> friendly. The end result was the foam fell off on launch. This fact
> can be search on the Internet.
Not true. Prior to STS-107 the two missions with the worst damage from
ET insulation strikes were STS-45 and STS-27 which were launched in
1992 and 1988. Each of these missions was manifested before Clinton's
administration took office.
> The joke is the exhaust from each
> shuttle launch spew out more toxic residue than the foqam on the old
> main tank.
Which has always been the case. What's your point? Don't bother
trying to make something less hazardous to the environment if there's
something more pollutant out there?
> The shuttles are old and dangerous. They serve little purpose except
> for feel good PR and to employ a lot of bureaucrats at NASA.
....
> NASA
> should scrap them and let private companies like Bert Rutan or others
> build new vehicles.
Absolutely. At least we agree on that!
--
SQL> select * from users | Justin Wigg - Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
where clue > 0; | http://juthan.blogspot.com
no rows selected | Reply: justinwigg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT shuttle problem
- From: Dave
- Re: OT shuttle problem
- From: Phil Newnham
- Re: OT shuttle problem
- References:
- OT shuttle problem
- From: Peter
- Re: OT shuttle problem
- From: Ken Biggles
- OT shuttle problem
- Prev by Date: Re: OT shuttle problem
- Next by Date: Re: F1 to elitest?
- Previous by thread: Re: OT shuttle problem
- Next by thread: Re: OT shuttle problem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|