On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:15:29 +0200, "Henk Boonsma"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
To begin with then the foam that got Columbia was certainly both quite
larger and most importantly it came off in the low Earth atmosphere,
when Columbia was ploughing though it a quite some speed.

The foam piece wasn't that much larger

I would question that. I have closely examined both Columbia and
Discovery video, where there seems to be a noticeable size difference.

and could have damaged a wing panel
irrepairably had it come off with greater speed.

Greater speed depends on thicker atmosphere. Discovery seemed to pass
through that danger zone scratch free.

So already you have two reason why it does not match Columbia.

In the case of Discovery this foam only came off due to what appears
to be direct SRB separation. So it did not, and would not, have come
off when it could have posed a danger.

AFAIK this link hasn't been made nor has it been proven. It might well have
come off earlier, there's no telling at this time.

Certainly it is a best guess situation. However, you should look at
the bigger picture.

I would say that this glitch has about a 1 in 200 chance of becoming a
more serious problem. What is more is that if this came off due to the
SRBs, then it is not even a problem at all. I would give those odds
about 50/50.

So you could estimate that their next September launch could have
taken on a 1 in 400 risk of becoming a real problem. What is more is
that since they now know all about foam damage, then so could their
back-up plans be put into use.

And so the real odds of a crew suffering "foam death" comes in as
negligible.

My point simply is that how can they ground their Shuttles over a
negligible concern, when the Shuttle has far greater odds of killing a
crew through one of many other reasons?

What is more is that by fixing this undesired glitch during on-going
launches, then although their next mission would have taken on this
extra 1 in 400 risk, but it could well be all fixed by the time that
future launches come about.

And you can rest assured that this method would more than double the
launch rate over how they are currently doing it.

Oddly enough, NASA this very trip, is testing their new repair
procedures. Although I really cannot see the point of repairing the
chip marks on the tiles.

The repairs their doing are bull**** and you know it. They're trying to fix
small dents in tiles that don't need fixing just to satisfy the American
public and the politicians.

Sounds like rats playing to the tune of the piped piper.

Still, you can at least be assured that some people are not a dumb as
what NASA would like them to be. News of their plan to do an extra
spacewalk made me smile, simply by knowing how pointless it was.

NASA would be insane to do this every mission.

There's no way that they can repair a carbon
panel on the wing, and they've said to publicly.

Oddly enough I watched a video clip on NASA TV where they seemed to
indicate that they could do exactly that. Still, you are quite correct
that this seems like a job beyond their ability.

My thought about this problem has always been that they should simply
"plug up the hole". That should be a lot more feasible than with
trying to replace a fragile carbon wing panel.

Cardman.