XPost: sci.space.shuttle   
   From: andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk   
      
   [copied to .shuttle, followups set]   
   On 2004-07-17, Jorge R. Frank  wrote:   
   >   
   >> If your conclusion above is correct, then it seems to me that previous   
   >> flights have been lucky in that, for instance, those paint flecks made   
   >> their pits in the windows and not some piece of RCC.   
   >   
   > Indeed.   
      
   A related query:   
      
   In a study of orbital debris I have at home, it shows a graph of the   
   statistically expected number of window replacements - due to impact   
   pitting, I believe - against the orbital attitude of the Orbiter.   
   (tail-first getting less damage than nose-first, for example). It   
   comments that flight rules require that, all other factors (mission   
   requirements, say) considered, the attitude should be planned to   
   minimise window damage.   
      
   Is there plans to develop a similar rule regarding RCC "exposure", or is   
   the expected flux low enough that attitude isn't a significant factor?   
      
   (I suppose this is a lot less relevant now that most on-orbit time will   
   be docked to ISS, where attitude is pretty much mandated by the station,   
   but...)   
      
   --   
   -Andrew Gray   
    andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)