# THREE! (not one) pieces of insulation hit the left wing of Columbia. :( **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2003, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818 "2003-02-22T19:06:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/61 "2003-02-25T19:45:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Papermache Prince \* > \*\*Regarding Lewis & Clark: While the initial expenditure was $2,500, upon their return “A list of expenses provided by Lewis on August 5th, 1807 reached a final cost of $37,722.25, thirteen times the amount allocated by Congress.” From the [site](http://www.lclark.edu/org/bicprog/200/011903.html)sponsored by the Lewis & Clark College, in Portland, Oregon. The source they reference for the $37,722.25 amount is _Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with Related Documents, 1783-1854_. Jackson, Donald, ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978. \*\* Which works out to roughly $537,920 in contemporary money. Not cheap at all. (To calculate those numbers I used the price of gold in 1803 $19.20, with the price of gold in 2001 $271.36) Not to mention they ran into some pretty hefty “cost overruns.” ---
**Author:** ![I\_Brian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c89c15/32.png) [@I\_Brian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Brian)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/62 "2003-02-25T20:29:35Z")
**Eddie the Dane** - > [@](#): > > Please show me ANY evidence that human inhabitation in space could ever be practical, affordable, and/or desirable. You see, there’s this complicated concept called _long-term investment_… …and new frontiers have a habit of opening new markets and wealth-making opportunities. Have you seriously never heard enthusiasts talking about mining the solar system? Hence the L-C reference. Of course, if you are advocating that the USA abandon it’s position in the space race so that Chinese flags can dominate all non-terrestrial resources in the solar system… But that is simply one issue among many. > [@](#): > > Or ar you one of those Malthusian doomsdayers who believes that we are going to populate ourselves off the planet, and the only way we can survive is to ship our population elsewhere? Actually, no - but if you think humanity’s long-term future remains solely on this planet then you are arguing a seemingly unique and strange position. Earth has many vulnerabilities and is a limited asset. ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/63 "2003-02-26T00:10:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*1… It isn’t important. > > 1. I don’t recall any “disinformation” from NASA regarding Challenger at the time, \*\* 1. . That’s unknown at this time. Let’s see what the investigation finds out. My guess is that we will never know for sure… 2. I see… Then how about a little reminder from someone who was involved? [http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107\_challenger\_030224.html](http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_challenger_030224.html) Challenger panel members said they have no doubts about the integrity and the ability of the Gehman board. But\*\* they recall NASA’s uncooperative approach in the early days of the Challenger investigation\*\* and said board members had to push hard for information. \*\* “There was a lot of obfuscation,” said Challenger board member Robert Hotz,\*\* 88, former editor of Aviation Week & Space Technology. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/64 "2003-02-26T02:01:13Z")
I am nothing if not fair…🙂 The last three paragraphs are of concern. An “Official of the Board” is critical of three pieces but also the 500 mph mentioned. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62056-2003Feb24.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62056-2003Feb24.html) ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/65 "2003-02-26T02:32:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tuckerfan \* > Do you have any idea of how primitive the computers used in the Apollo program were (state of the art for the era)? Go to the dollar store, buy a disposable pocket calculator, and you’ll be holding more computer power in your hand, than NASA had for the Apollo missions. I think I do have an idea of this, which is part of why I question the extent to which the space program was responsible for the development of the computer industry. > [@](#): > > The push for intergrated circuit designs was led by NASA, because smaller computers means more space and weight is available for other things on the spacecraft. Yet the point you bring up later works against using the latest, smallest, most powerful chips: designs must be “frozen” and debugged long before they’re launched, and the mandate for reliability generally outweighs the attaction of using the latest technology. > [@](#): > > Until NASA came on the scene, the prime push for computer development was the military. I think military applications were always large (usually exceeding NASA’s – check the relative budgets) and remain so today. Academic, scientific and business applications were important before the space program came along, and all the time it was in full swing. So I remain unconvinced that NASA played the vital role that you seem to be suggesting. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/66 "2003-02-26T02:50:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tuckerfan \* > Which works out to roughly $537,920 in contemporary money. Not cheap at all. I’ll dissent – any government-initiated endeavor that can produce a tenth of what the Lewis and Clark expedition did for $540k in current dollars gets my vote as highly effective. A shuttle mission costs about 1000 times this much, yet I think few would claim it matches L & C in significance. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/67 "2003-02-26T03:04:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scr4 \* > It _is_ the government’s job. The public (or a huge fraction of it) wants it done, and no private company is willing to spend the money, so it has to be done by the government. Or not done at all. Where is it written that what the public wants must be done? ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/68 "2003-02-26T03:11:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\* > A shuttle mission costs about 1000 times this much, yet I think few would claim it matches L & C in significance. \*\* Perhaps if the astronauts ate dog… ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/69 "2003-02-26T03:17:05Z")
Computers still filled a room and computing was down on the ground in Apollo. Gemini had an ASMD calculatordeveloped for on board the size of a paperback. (Perhaps that was so they could press buttons with a space suit on.) “Space rated” 486’s fly on unmanned probes. They have to work from here to Pluto without repair. I’ve seen laptops on the shuttle, so I presume that astronauts use newer CPUs. ---
**Author:** ![FranticMad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c68b51/32.png) [@FranticMad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FranticMad)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/70 "2003-02-26T03:29:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*Where is it written that what the public wants must be done? \*\* Good question! Hmmm. Well, the Constitution sort of says so. If not the public, then who do you suggest should determine what must be done? Out of interest, what do you call the type of government that logically develops from your choice (democracy obviously not being on your list)? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/71 "2003-02-26T04:13:00Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Xema_ > Pretty decent (for their day) computers were around well before we got serious about space exploration, and tons of non-space-related applications drove their development. Not true through much of the 60’s: > [@](#): > > DoD and the National Air and Space Administration (NASA) were driving the market in the early 1960s, and government program managers and their defense contractors worked in close coordination to develop special-purpose products. As manufacturing capabilities grew and prices dropped, ICs became viable commercially and affordable for a wider variety of defense applications. [http://www.acq.osd.mil/es/dut/ic/appa.htm](http://www.acq.osd.mil/es/dut/ic/appa.htm) > [@](#): > > this is the first production use of such a circuit in a consumer product. Semiconductor integrated circuits such as these are now in use in more than 100 different programs, such as improved Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile and other space age programs demanding maximum reliability. For example , the Interplanetary Monitoring Platform (IMP) satellite launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on November 27, 1963, contained the first semiconductor integrated circuits to be sent to outer space. In less than three months’ time after the first space application of these circuits, Zenith has applied the semiconductor integrated circuit to the field off consumer electronics. > [@](#): > > “We do not expect to sell many of them initially,” he said, “because for some time they will be more expensive than today’s miniature hearing aids. However, we are confident they will prove themselves and eventually become an important part of the business, just as color has become an important part of the TV industry.” [About Texas Instruments | TI.com](http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/history/zenith.shtml) [Apollo computers](http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/computer.htm), the first to use IC’s. The role of the Defense department’s contributions to IC design shouldn’t be underestimated here, however that path to commercialization has its own unique problems: > [@](#): > > This site describes the design work for a MOS-LSI microprocessor chip set designed starting **June 1968 and completed by June 1970**. This highly integrated computer chip set was designed for the US Navy F14A “TomCat” fighter jet by Mr. Steve Geller and Mr. Ray Holt (Ray’s Biography) while working for Garrett AiResearch Corp under contract from Grumman Aircraft, the prime contractor for the US Navy. The MOS-LSI chips were manufactured by American Microsystems, Inc of Santa Clara, California. > … > In 1971, Mr. Ray Holt wrote a design paper on the MOS-LSI chip set design which was approved for publication by Computer Design magazine. However, because of national security reasons the U.S. Navy would not approve this paper for publication. Mr. Holt attempted again in 1985 to have the paper cleared and the answer again was no. Finally, in April 1997, he started the process again and this time was able to **receive clearance for publication as of April 21, 1998**. > **[First Microprocessor](https://firstmicroprocessor.com/)** > > The design and development of the world's first microprocessor, proceeding the Intel 4004 by two years. -Intel came out with the first **commercial** microprocessor, the 4004, in 1971. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/72 "2003-02-26T05:25:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*I’ll dissent – any government-initiated endeavor that can produce a tenth of what the Lewis and Clark expedition did for $540k in current dollars gets my vote as highly effective. > > A shuttle mission costs about 1000 times this much, yet I think few would claim it matches L & C in significance. \*\* I never claimed that the Lewis & Clark expedition _wasn’t_ effective, merely that it _wasn’t_ as cheap as **Eddie** claimed. NASA’s budget has effectively remained static since Apollo, and yet people are expecting it to produce the same kinds of results as it did during Apollo, even though NASA has fewer real dollars to work with. That’s like handing a modern day Lewis and Clark $37,722.25 and expecting them to produce the same results as Lewis and Clark. An absurd proposition to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![Papermache\_Prince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f05b48/32.png) [@Papermache\_Prince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Papermache_Prince)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/73 "2003-02-26T14:23:37Z")
This is from the website of Economic History Resources, as part of an article about comparing the [relative value](http://www.eh.net/hmit/compare/) of an amount of money between one time period and another. It’s an interesting discussion, although I don’t claim to understand it fully. “There is no single “correct” measure, and economic historians use one or more different series depending on the context of the question.” . . . . “Putting a man on the moon. During March (1966): NASA told Congress the “run-out cost” of the Apollo program (to put men on the moon) would be an estimated $22.718 billion for the 13 year program that accomplished six successful missions of putting astronauts on the moon between July 1969 and December 1972. ([http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/keyev4.htm](http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/keyev4.htm)) According the Steve Garber, NASA History Web Curator, the final cost was between $20 and $25 billion. How much would that be today? If we used the CPI, it would be $124 billion, but this would not be a very good measure since the CPI does not reflect the cost of rockets and launch pads. Using the broader based GDP deflator gives a present cost of $101 billion. The alternative of using the wage series would be a rough measure of the labor cost in current terms and it would be $132 billion. By using the GDP per capita, we are measuring the cost in terms of average product and would get a number of $207 billion. Finally, a way to consider the “opportunity cost” to society, the best measure might be the cost as a percent of GDP, and that number would be $293 billion. This amount over thirteen years would be $22 billion per year. As a comparison, the NASA budget for the current fiscal year is $14.9 billion.” Copyright © 2002 by [EH.NET](http://EH.NET). All rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to the author. Other examples given are the cost of building the Erie Canal and the annual salary of Babe Ruth in today’s dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/74 "2003-02-26T22:18:40Z")
\*Originally posted by Squink \* > [@](#): > > The role of the Defense department’s contributions to IC design shouldn’t be underestimated here … I thought that was one of my points – that there were non-spacetravel apps and markets sufficient to ensure a reasonable pace of development. IOW, NASA was useful but not vital. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/75 "2003-02-26T22:34:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tuckerfan \* > I never claimed that the Lewis & Clark expedition _wasn’t_ effective, merely that it _wasn’t_ as cheap as **Eddie** claimed.] Well, you didn’t really say that. Your statement was “… roughly $537,920 in contemporary money. Not cheap at all.” I believe that in view of what was accomplished, that is very cheap. > [@](#): > > NASA’s budget has effectively remained static since Apollo, and yet people are expecting it to produce the same kinds of results as it did during Apollo, even though NASA has fewer real dollars to work with. There may be some people who expect the equivalent of a moon landing every few years. But most of the rest of us would simply like some sense of value for money. The budget isn’t what it was during Apollo, but it certainly isn’t chump change either. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/76 "2003-02-26T22:48:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by FranticMad \* > Well, the Constitution sort of says so. If not the public, then who do you suggest should determine what must be done? Out of interest, what do you call the type of government that logically develops from your choice (democracy obviously not being on your list)? I think most democracies (including our republic) understand that there are limits on what the government should attempt. I believe the US Constitution clearly embraces this concept – it puts a far amount of emphasis on the limits of government. I expect there are any number of things that the public can be shown to want that government has little or no business spending money in pursuit of: a pill that will make your spouse look like J. Lopez or B. Pitt, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2003, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/77 "2003-02-27T05:57:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*There may be some people who expect the equivalent of a moon landing every few years. But most of the rest of us would simply like some sense of value for money. The budget isn’t what it was during Apollo, but it certainly isn’t chump change either. \*\* No, it isn’t but NASA hasn’t been allowed to have the focus that it had during the Apollo era, either. With people clamoring that NASA produce results _now_, when that’s not always possible, NASA has to be a hydra, with each head handling a different area and desperately hoping that one of the heads will produce enough of _something_ to at least keep NASA’s budget from shrinking any farther. Besides, it’s absurd to expect that every dollar spent yield a useful result immediately, if ever. Many companies (Apple springs to mind at the moment along with 3M) come down hard on their R&D guys if their failure rate is _low_. Why? Because they know that the guys with the low failure rate aren’t pushing the envelope in their research. And yet, don’t many people hypocritically demand that NASA be on the cutting edge and be 100% successful? There’s also how one determines the value of NASA’s research. Studying the weather on Mars or Venus, may not have an _immediate_ technological benefit, but it _does_ help us understand how climate and environment interact, which in turn benefits us in understanding the Earth’s weather system. Again, I go back to the example of the laser. I read an article written about the laser when it was first invented. The article billed the laser as the “world’s most expensive eraser” since the only use that had been discovered for it at that point in time was that it could be used to vaporize ink on paper. Today, some fifty or so years later, the damn things are everywhere. Hell, you can _buy_ a laser for less that $20! I’m 34 years old and I can remember when the thought of being able to own a laser, much less buying one for less than a $1,000 was considered to be flights of fancy! We’ve sent a handful of canoes a few miles out into the ocean in the 51 years since Man first went into space, and have returned a bounty of knowledge, and yet people say that it’s not enough. Nearly three hundred years passed from when Columbus set sail and the birth of the United States. It took another 169 years for America to become the preeminent power on Earth and yet, in the merest eyeblink, the space program is asked to produce wonders every time it farts. For a moment, let’s say that the space program has produced _nothing_ of value whatsoever. Not in terms of technological innovation, not in terms of international prestige, not even in terms of inspiring people. It simply is something humanity has done. Now, out of all the nations on Earth, the US has poured more money and gone farther in space than any other nation. We’re also the technological leader in the world. Okay, so maybe other nations have taken what we’ve come up with and made it viable, but when you trace this history of things like VCRs and modern shipbuilding practices to name but two things, you see that they all began here. We, as a nation, have a desire to push the frontiers, and to deny us the frontier of space, for _any_ reason, puts the rest of that at risk. We didn’t _need_ to expand westward from the eastern seaboard of the US, but we _wanted_ to. No one, in 1803, could have predicted that the Lousiana purchase would have led to Hollywood or Microsoft or any of the other things that have arisen in the western part of the United States, but without them, we wouldn’t be the nation that we are today. To pass judgement on something in it’s infancy, as the space program most surely is, now, is akin to folks saying, “Who the hell cares what Lewis and Clark discovered?” Even the very purchase of the Lousiana Territory was questioned on Constitutional grounds when Jefferson bought it from the French (and he basically had to pull a fast one on Congress and the nation to do it), but today, if you were to say, “We should give it all back to the French!” you’d be hardpressed to find any sane person to agree with you. If we’re going to give up on the space program now, or demand that everything that it does produce results of ‘X’ type, then we might as well say that the US never should have bought land from the French or the Russians! (And it took over a hundred years before we decided to pump oil out of Alaska.) ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2003, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/78 "2003-02-27T19:53:56Z")
I’m not sure if the price of gold can be used as a baseline…after all, improved mining techniques (and, relative lack of demand due to not being used in monetary systems,) have made gold’s prices plummet relative to other goods and services. I think that even vis a vis 1930’s prices, let alone 1830’s, $33,000 would be half a million or more. 1830’s much much more than half million. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Brian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c89c15/32.png) [@I\_Brian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Brian)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/79 "2003-02-27T20:17:07Z")
Just to keep folks up to date, and to return to the original topic - this week’s issue of New Scientist reports that internal NASA e-mails have suggested the possibility that the object that hit the wing was not actually a 1.2kg block of foam - but instead a 29kg block of ice. And apparently the people who assessed the safety of the situation had never done a shuttle safety assessment in their lives - the experienced Boeing boys who used to do it instead having been shifted to other engineering depts as a cost-cutting exercise. Perhaps those who are calling for value-for-money shuttle missions actually got it - and with short-term thinking comes the inevitable long-term loss. ---
**Author:** ![GOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818/80 "2003-02-28T03:02:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I, Brian \* > \*\*a 29kg block of ice. > \*\* If true, that changes everything… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-not-one-pieces-of-insulation-hit-the-left-wing-of-columbia/156818.md?page=5)