NY Times Accuracy?

"stmx3"

So, a couple of points he
1) Isn't the NY Times making a false claim in their headline?
2) Did Mr. Poulos take the right tack in declining to say "yes"?

My *question*, then, is NASA justified in launching without a
"large-hole" repair capability? My *opinion* is that if they are
pursuing such a capability, then they shouldn't launch until this
capability is ready and in place. Otherwise, they will be seen as being
driven by schedule yet again.

First of all, meeting schedules is a top priority. All the kiss-ass
administrators saying that it is not a factor does not change the fact they want
to return to flight ASAP. The Columbia accident was not a schedule induced
accident anyway, They have had the same problem for 20 years.

The shuttle will fly again without a full menu of repair capability. For one
thing it is outside of available technology. For another there are failure
scenarios that fall outside of expectations, for example, loss of multiple RCC
panels due to space debris.

NASA will put together a "small damage' repair capability, fix the bipod ramp,
write some memos about improving communications, and return to flight. That is
what their job is. It is what the public wants, and even what the CAIB wants.
NASA has not been required to make space flight a low risk activity.