The Shuttle: How history should have unfolded...

[azchris]

I'm re-producing a NASA/Columbia web based retrospective video- http://chrisvalentines.com/sts107/videoessay.html<br /><br />And I'm starting work on the section that deals with the actual disaster and its causes. And my views will be reflected in it...I'm asking for a counter weight view.<br /><br />I'm hopeful that someone who is of the thinking that NASA was negligent, careless or uncaring and could have prevented the Columbia accident, would outline how this would have taken place. Play revisionist historian for me. <br /><br />How long back in time would you need to go to bifurcate history in order for Columbia and the 7 astronauts to still be around?<br /><br />How would a plausible scenario come about for the foam shedding to be deemed "too dangerous to fly"?<br /><br />Detail how NASA would have been able to justify and secure the needed funds to redesign the External tank without a disasterous accident.<br /><br />We know now it would take at least 18 months to resolve (somewhat) the danger issues; Elaborate on how "pausing" the program launches would have been explained and justified.<br /><br />In short, I'd like someone who thinks like Scott Hubbard or Admiral Gehman, that this was a preventable event in history, to detail "what should have happened" and make me believe it could have happened that way.<br /><br />I'm sure there are some great ideas out there as to "what should and could have been"<br /><br />thanks in advance<br /> chris<br />www.chrisvalentines.com