How did we get leaders like dyer, Gehman & bolden--mistakes were made---Does that mean we should cease operations? !!!

True, mistakes were made by not having rcc repair contingencies available considering the history of tile/rcc damage & not getting best pictures from DOD as possible of the damage Columbia suffered.

But as Krantz points out there are risks & we can't always have all the answers.  Does that mean we should be so risk averse that we cease making progress?  

Krantz stated the following & it is on target----

TO read and listen to the coverage about the space shuttle, you would think NASA's mission team has taken careless risks with the lives of the seven astronauts who went into space on the Discovery last Tuesday. During the launching, foam fell off the external tank. For the risk-averse, the only acceptable thing to do now is retire the shuttle program immediately and wait for the divine arrival of the next generation of spacecraft. I am disgusted at the lack of courage and common sense this attitude shows.

Forum: Op-Ed Contributors

All progress involves risk. Risk is essential to fuel the economic engine of our nation. And risk is essential to renew American's fundamental spirit of discovery so we remain competitive with the rest of the world.

My take on the current mission is very straightforward. The shuttle is in orbit. To a great extent mission managers have given the spacecraft a clean bill of health. Let us remember that this is a test flight. I consider it a remarkably successful test so far.

The technical response to the Columbia accident led to a significant reduction in the amount of debris striking this shuttle during launching. Mission managers have said that the external tank shed 80 percent less foam this time than on previous launchings. Only in the news media, apparently, is an 80 percent improvement considered a failure. Rather than quit, we must now try to reduce even more the amount of foam that comes off the tank.

Sent from my iPad