[copied to .shuttle, followups set]
On 2004-07-17, Jorge R. Frank wrote:

If your conclusion above is correct, then it seems to me that previous
flights have been lucky in that, for instance, those paint flecks made
their pits in the windows and not some piece of RCC.

Indeed.

A related query:

In a study of orbital debris I have at home, it shows a graph of the
statistically expected number of window replacements - due to impact
pitting, I believe - against the orbital attitude of the Orbiter.
(tail-first getting less damage than nose-first, for example). It
comments that flight rules require that, all other factors (mission
requirements, say) considered, the attitude should be planned to
minimise window damage.

Is there plans to develop a similar rule regarding RCC "exposure", or is
the expected flux low enough that attitude isn't a significant factor?

(I suppose this is a lot less relevant now that most on-orbit time will
be docked to ISS, where attitude is pretty much mandated by the station,
but...)

--
-Andrew Gray