I submit that you do not understand the problem, nor do you understand flight testing. I find nothing you have said to be humorous, rather it is quite alarming the level of unreal perfection you and those like you demand on an experimental program.
YES. I said EXPERIMENTAL. The STS is not an operational vehicle, and is not intended to be. Experimental programs carry risk, and would be somewhat worthless if they didn’t.
As for the materials on the tank, it is what it is. I didn’t say I like the funky eco-foam, but there is a constraint involved that is now NOT in NASA’s power to reverse. Halting all flights until a new vehicle with the design flaw eliminated is not an option.
As for the impossibility of keeping the foam on the tank, it is certainly not impossible, but it apparently not something that can be GUARANTEED. As I said earlier, you are confusing an operational program with an experimental flight test program. The development costs and timelines are much longer and more demanding for operational systems. The STS is accepted as an experimental program, and is how flight research has always been conducted.
I can understand your desire to stay away from experimental programs, and I can’t really blame you. But to assuage your falsely-applied sense of outrage, and to address your misplaced sense of embarrassment, please consider that the flight crews and mission specialists know that a STS flight is not a drive to the beach.
How do you read a desire to stay away from experiential Programs into my posting??
I am considering the flight crews in my comments and I will not accept anything less than a 100% assurance that something as critical as the Foam Bonding is not reliable, give me a break.
Frank look when the Columbia lifted off there was an interview with someone (NASA Expert) who said that there was nothing to worry about Referring to the briefcase size piece that hit the wing..Now whth that said I really do not have much faith in anything they say.