"Cardman" wrote in message
...

The first thing I noticed about this launch was how much the camera
coverage had improved. Then they did not quite do that for the TV and
Internet viewers did they? I also noticed how nice looking the ET was
these days, with a multi colour system.


No, they did that so they could study thefoam problem


That camera on the ET is a very good thing for NASA publicity, but in
this case there is also a down side. As I indeed noticed the live
coverage of that foam chunk breaking off.

The first case of the paranoid idiot syndrome crops up from those
people who cannot even do a simple E=MC2 calculation.

Columbia's foam problem came about due to using weaker CFC free foam
that lead to foam breaking off while still thick in the Earth's
atmosphere.

Thanks for playing. The bipod ramp was manually sprayed on using the old
CFC containing foam.



I am also sure that it is true to say that foam breaking off in this
weak spot is unlikely to hit the Shuttle anyway. Should it ever do so,
then lets keep in mind that this is high atmosphere and low energy
foam.

See, this is the thinking that doomed Columbia.


So is this successful and safe launch reason to ground the entire
Shuttle fleet? Let me guess. Paranoia over "killer foam" and not
understanding the real risk to blame.

No, I don't think it's NASA that doesn't understand the true risks.


Sure it would be nice to not have any foam break off, but lets keep in
mind that this is "foam". One knock and it is off in other words. And
even in the worst case situation, then does not NASA now do a post
launch inspection for damage?

Which is part of what they are doing on this flight.


So again, no problem.

And so NASA is now back to the drawing board trying to solve a
problem, that is not really a problem, and one that they are unlikely
to (easily) fix anyway. Do I really need to point out a successful
launch?

Columbia's launch was successful.


You'd be funnier if you weren't so tragically wrong about your facts.