> > http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/a-misc/107_bw_2_07.jpg > Andy, would I be correct in presuming the shuttle image is roughly 64 x 48 > pixels in size? I am no expert in digital imaging but your estimate seems about right to me. My reluctance to go along with a definitive statement that the wing was damaged has to do with a number of personal biases so to speak. I am not saying that the wing in question might not at the time indicated by the photograph be undergoing change ... that is a possibility I guess. But the question is more about whether the damage to the wing (if in fact there was such damage) could have been seen by the crew before leaving orbit. If the wing was truly damaged and it was damaged to the extent apparently indicated by this image then I am inclined to believe that this damage would have been easily seen by the crew. This particular image may be an indication of failure-in-progress or nothing more than an imaging anomaly ... like a reflection or glint of sunlight, the peculiar orientation of the orbiter relative to the camera and sun, etc. I think that the underlying question is whether a ground based telescope would have been able to detect a few tiles missing from the heat shield such that a catastrophic failure would have ocurred. It is this that I gravely doubt. Considering the resolving power of the optics and the camera it would be very difficult indeed to detect the absence of a few tiles so unless one had the capability of checking from close range the integrity of the heat shield, a ground based system would, in my opinion, not yield significant information if the damage was slight. In this particular image the resolution is very low. I wondr if a film based system would have worked better. andy
