Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fjzappa t1_ivym90j wrote

Reply to comment by Epcplayer in NASA leaders recently viewed footage of an underwater dive off the East coast of Florida, and they confirm it depicts an artifact from the space shuttle Challenger by marketrent

And the reason they used that particular foam was because "more environmentally friendly." Apparently not "astronaut friendly."

2

invaderzim257 t1_ivz31cx wrote

…is that relevant to why it came off of the shuttle? or is it just a point that people can hang on and direct criticism at?

2

fjzappa t1_iw0267j wrote

Yes it's relevant. The foam was a different composition than the original. Original composition foam did not flake off in flight. But it had some pretty strong solvents that were emitted to the air as it cured.

Sauce

> In July 2005, NASA reported that they changed the foam insulation a decade earlier, switching from a foam-blowing agent that used an environmentally damaging chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) to one using a more benign hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) blowing agent. The newer HFC-blown foam insulation is a significant change since it is reported to be more brittle than the originally specified insulation material.

3