Tariq Malik has a good story on the current state of the Shuttle tile issue.

Apparently, the concern is not for loss of the vehicle (and of course, the crew, but we have lots of astronauts*, and only three orbiters left). The concern is whether or not a repair will reduce the turnaround time for repair on the ground that’s worth the risk (to both crew doing EVA and the vehicle, in the event they actually make things worse by dinging it somewhere else or botching the repair) of attempting to repair it.

I don’t have access to all the data, but I’d be inclined to come in as is, assuming that it really doesn’t risk vehicle loss.

Someone on a mailing list I’m on noted that they wouldn’t want to be the person who signed off on a return without a repair. As I commented there, there are risks either way. If they attempt to repair it, and lose the vehicle on entry, it would be easy to second guess the decision, and decide after the fact that the repair caused the loss, whereas leaving it alone might have brought them home all right.

There are no risk-free decisions. Every action in life, every breath you take, is a gamble. It’s just a matter of judging the odds.

[Friday morning update]

Sorry, Keith, but it wasn’t a joke. It’s a description of reality. I know that you have trouble with that sometimes.

[Monday morning update]

In rereading Keith’s strange comment, I have no idea what he’s talking about here:

…to make sure to get a link to a drunk astronaut story in the process.

The only story I linked (other than Tariq Malik’s) to was one about Lisa Nowak, the main point of which was that NASA has too many astronauts. Reading is fundamental.

* Of course, the fact that we’d lose Barbara Morgan, the other “teacher in space” (quotes because she’s officially an astronaut) would have dire PR effects.