Here's draft 1 of what Paul said: (I chopped out some babbling and errrs etc, and a couple of things I couldn't make out as he got faster with anger he he.)<br /><br />BBC: Q) " I'm a little bit confused - I'm not an expert by any stretch on this - (but) last night it seemed the chipped tile was a significant issue, and today, Paul, it seems like NASA is trying to play this down. <br /><br />"Now, I don't understand why this is not seen as a big issue this morning. You said that the engineering community - that their judgement is that they haven't reached a decision on whether or not to seek more data on this. I don't understand why this is. When these shuttles return to earth and you've done an inspection, have they had the kinda damage to the same area this has apparently occurred near the nose - or the landing gear I should say. <br /><br />"And I want to ask if you've made a decision to repair this damaged tile, or it way to premature to talk about repair? <br /><br />Paul Hill: A) "You know I warned you that you're going to get frustrated if you ask me for more information, not because I'm trying to be evasive, but I've told you every damn thing I know. Answering the last part (of the question). <br /><br />"We are not prepared to say if it needs a repair, we're not prepared to say it does need a repair, but what we are prepared to say is. The experts - like the smart people like Dan Bell - can look at the data and then tell us - based on flight experience, based on the level of damage we already know we've landed with and what we know we can land with, that's the process. <br /><br />"Some of those folks early judgement was that the damage looked like it wasn't going to be a significant issue, and that in no way means they are going to say that it doesn't need to be repaired, or it does need to be repaired, or it does need additional data or doesn't need additional data. <br /><br />"It means the judgement of the folks that do this for a living and have quantified tile dama