And here I was trying to be on your side on this, Fnord. You could have been polite and just tried to prove to me that I was wrong. I could've taken that
and we could have started a separate topic on this (I even encouraged that in my post). But no. Shows what� I get for taking you out of the ignore file and
trusting.
While we're on the subject:
Here are some of the sources for my belief. HOWEVER. You might want to look at the bottom source, as it somewhat (though not entirely), vindicates your facts.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/08/ ... -envir.php
And still further:
From Space.com
However, the above appears to be old data. Out of date.
There is no source for the original article from Florida Today.com, (the link no longer works) but this guy reproduced the whole thing.
Take note of the emphasized portions in red text.
It appears that Columbia was using the OLD foam. Not the non-freon foam. But Discovery later used the new non-freon foam and it almost WAS destroyed by it.
So I think there was confusion in the communities as to whether the "environmentally friendly" foam killed Columbia. In this specific instance, it
appears that you are correct and that it did not. But that doesn't change the fact that later flights WERE made less safe and still ARE.
Now, I've been nice enough about it to try and look at the resources I had and the resources you provided. And it turns out we're both correct, after a
fashion.
Nevertheless, you still reflexively decided to make this into a personal "fuck you" moment.
So back into the round file you go.
Oh and Fnord? Since it's descended to this level by your actions anyway - in return, a nice big
FUCK YOU FNORD
*PLONK*
and we could have started a separate topic on this (I even encouraged that in my post). But no. Shows what� I get for taking you out of the ignore file and
trusting.
While we're on the subject:
Here are some of the sources for my belief. HOWEVER. You might want to look at the bottom source, as it somewhat (though not entirely), vindicates your facts.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/08/ ... -envir.php
And still further:
From Space.com
However, the above appears to be old data. Out of date.
There is no source for the original article from Florida Today.com, (the link no longer works) but this guy reproduced the whole thing.
Take note of the emphasized portions in red text.
It appears that Columbia was using the OLD foam. Not the non-freon foam. But Discovery later used the new non-freon foam and it almost WAS destroyed by it.
So I think there was confusion in the communities as to whether the "environmentally friendly" foam killed Columbia. In this specific instance, it
appears that you are correct and that it did not. But that doesn't change the fact that later flights WERE made less safe and still ARE.
Now, I've been nice enough about it to try and look at the resources I had and the resources you provided. And it turns out we're both correct, after a
fashion.
Nevertheless, you still reflexively decided to make this into a personal "fuck you" moment.
So back into the round file you go.
Oh and Fnord? Since it's descended to this level by your actions anyway - in return, a nice big
FUCK YOU FNORD
*PLONK*