10 years? I thoight we'd be on Mars by then.

My only question would be, haven't there been like a hundred space shuttle flights in the past, why didn't this happen pre-2002? Or was it always happening and not being noticed?

Yes, foam has always broken off the external tank and has repeatedly hit the shuttle. Unfortunately with Columbia, it struck precisely where it would cause catastrophic failure during re-entry.

It may not happen at all. The present administration is reviewing the mission now.

I don't know about the hate, but they've had issues with this foam for yrs now even after losing 7 astronauts and a Shuttle. Seriously. They put a man on the Moon more than 40 yrs ago, and they can't solve the foam problem.

Apparently attaching tiles correctly is the most complex task in the history of the universe.

:rolleyes:

so if it's not on the leading edge, nothing to worry about, but if it is then they can't repair it.

The tiles aren't the cause of the problem. The foam shedding is. They could make the tiles impervious to foam impact, but unfortunately, they would weigh too much.

They think that Columbia actually had a hole about a foot in diameter in the leading edge. It's a combination of where the hit is (and how hot it gets during re-entry) and is it a ding or a hole.

"We can put a man on the Moon, but we can't______".

40 years later, this statement that we've all heard a million times gives me pause.
This IS indeed the great question, isn't it?

And 40 years later, with the lack of advancement in space-travel, no commercial space travel, and technology we were supposed to be enjoying right now, this question/statement gives further credence to the theory that we in fact did NOT go to the Moon.

So there.:p

Calling Bruce Willis.....

They could stay in the ISS for up to two months. And they could use the Soyuz if they had to.

Well, some things are a lot harder than putting two boots down on the moon.

If Soyuz can get them back to earth, would it be the case that sending another shuttle up is out of the question?

The point is more that the re-entry surface was protected by being under the capsule and clad by the booster cylinder, as opposed to running the breadth of the shuttle out on the open. But that seems to be the price of a reusable re-entry vehicle with a payload capacity of the shuttle.