Replies

"It'd be far easier for NASA to jump to the foam explanation, make some "fix" and get on with it. They're doing due diligence by looking at other possible causes -- so as to get at the real cause -- whatever it is."

I disagree with your assessment.

NASA dropped the most obvious cause - a huge piece of the tank's foam hitting the left wing - on the day after NASA said they were considering it.

Then we immediately get one BS cause after the next: Meteorite. Space junk impact. Sprite. These would have only be part of actual DD if NASA brought these up for consideration at the same time as the foam. It's too late, especially now after NASAs attempt to bury the foam problem.

What is the difference between The Foam Cause and all these other "possible causes"? The foam pins the blame directly on NASA incompetence, the other causes release them from blame.

The cat's out of the bag. The 1997 report by NASA engineer Greg Katnik is a virtual indictment of both NASA and their PC foam.

What is the difference between The Foam Cause and all these other "possible causes"? The foam pins the blame directly on NASA incompetence, the other causes release them from blame.

You guys are starting to sound like Captain Queeg reliving his discovery of a duplicate key to the food lockers. Well, Queeg was insane.

NASA is trying to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again. Avoiding "blame" is not an option.

Good heavens, I don't know if you guys are projecting, but not everyone has as corrupt souls as you. From what I can see, those engineers made engineering level assesments and they are still making them. You tinfoilers in the peanut gallery are amusing to a point, but after a while, your drumbeat of paranoia grows very tiresome.