> Melissa Motichek
> Headquarters, Washington September 23, 2003
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> the reinstallation of the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon panels on
> the Shuttle's wing leading edge ...
I hope these reporters ask the obvious questions as they
watch the hardware that failed on Columbia being attached,
unmodified, to the next orbiter scheduled to fly...
- Ed Kyle
Herb Schaltegger - 24 Sep 2003 15:30 GMT
> > Melissa Motichek
> > Headquarters, Washington September 23, 2003
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> - Ed Kyle
I hope, instead, they ask if the ET foam shedding - the issue that
CAUSED that hardware to fail - has been resolved.
Pointing fingers at the RCC for not surviving launch conditions it was
never supposed to encounter isn't particularly constructive (or fair to
the designers of the RCC and wing leading edge components).

Signature
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous
ed kyle - 25 Sep 2003 03:49 GMT
> > > Melissa Motichek
> > > Headquarters, Washington September 23, 2003
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> never supposed to encounter isn't particularly constructive (or fair to
> the designers of the RCC and wing leading edge components).
A good reporter would ask the question: Are you going to fly this
thing without "beefing up" the RCC as recommended by the CAIB in its
final report? It is a fair question.
If the answer is "RCC was not designed to survive the hit it took,"
then the follow-up questions should be: "Could it be re-engineered
to take such hits, or even to take smaller hits? If not, is it
possible to add a back-up insulation system in case RCC is breached
in the future?"
- Ed Kyle
Brian Thorn - 24 Sep 2003 23:30 GMT
>> Reporters will see work in progress on Atlantis, including
>> the reinstallation of the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon panels on
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>watch the hardware that failed on Columbia being attached,
>unmodified, to the next orbiter scheduled to fly...
The RCC was the victim, not the cause. Its specs clearly read "no
debris impacts allowed."
Brian
Hallerb - 25 Sep 2003 01:07 GMT
>The RCC was the victim, not the cause. Its specs clearly read "no
>debris impacts allowed."
>
>Brian
BUT. Since its clear they can be damaged or destroyed they should be redesigned
BEFORE return to flight.
This rush to save NASA by flying fast is likely to kill the organization long
term.
If we have another accident LOTS of questions are going to be asked. NASA
better have some good answers for things like....
Not redesigning RCC before return to flight.No quick emergency supplies to
orbit Not reviewing and requalifying all safety waivers etc etc etc.
They arent doing enough...
ed kyle - 25 Sep 2003 03:53 GMT
> >> Reporters will see work in progress on Atlantis, including
> >> the reinstallation of the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon panels on
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> The RCC was the victim, not the cause. Its specs clearly read "no
> debris impacts allowed."
I think the second CAIB recommendation, after reducing ET shedding,
was to beef up the RCC. Referring to a flawed original spec is not
going to satisfy a good science reporter.
- Ed Kyle