Paracelsus, I would think they are going over it very closely. Standard practice before flight is to perform acceptance testing - that is, a series of tests to prove that the unit has been fabricated properly and actually works. Having sabotage performed on it would invalidate that testing. The hardware owner would be required to reperform all acceptance testing or justify why that particular test would not be invalidated.

What should be occurring is the hardware provider team is hitting it fast and hard to answer all the questions and address all the issues. But yes, one major test would be a functional test.

It would surprise me if they don't have another computer ready to launch. Performing exhaustive tests on a computer and associated software can take a long time. Odds are they have a backup computer that has already gone through the testing and can be substituted for the damaged computer.

According to this news story, there was a second computer... also damaged.

KLBJ: NASA worker sabotages shuttle Endeavour computer

There doesn't seem to be a spare, as the plan was:

And, if it happens not to get fixed, it doesn't fly.

Another story: Houston Chronicle: Conroe company to review security

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

While one would think there should be a second, backup computer ready to go, the reality of the current environment is that it often is not the case. Non-mission critical hardware (called Crit 3) often does not have extra units built just for spares. My hardware we typically build and deliver 1 unit at a time, only as much as the program needs at the time they need it. If we're rolling design change we will probably prepare a qualification unit separate from the flight unit, but the qual unit typically is tested to much more stringent conditions to represent life use, which leaves it out of condition to be flown. So when things get behind schedule or last minute problems pop up or whatever, we find ourselves scrambling like mad, pushing paper like crazy, working long hours, and prodding everybody else along (and sometimes stepping on nerves) because we either hit the drop dead date or our hardware doesn't fly, and somebody at the Program gets mighty upset. The we have to juggle manifests to get on the next flight. Right.

So I certainly believe they only have one unit that was ready to go and that they are going to repair it and retest it and fly it, or they don't get it done and they fly without. That's the environment I work in.

Has anyone heard anything further about the saboteur, such as a motive? Since they also apparently got the back up computer, this wouldn't appear to be a sudden emotional thing ("I'm mad at my boss today"), but something that was planned out.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

About 30 employees at Invocon. I don't think a motive has been determined, or even the actor determined, but they seem to have a prime suspect.

Aviation Week: Invocon Probed For Sabotage

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Swift, the second unit was not a back-up unit. No one has officially described it as a back up. Gerstenmaier called it a test unit. Shorter articles call it "not meant for flight".

But yes, the multiple acts of sabotage suggest more than a whim on the part of the responsible party or parties.

An interesting company with a lot of fingers in a lot of goverment pots: e.g., this Navy Contract for "Star Trek hand-held Phaser Weapon".

This is a very strange story. Why the secrecy surrounding the alledged sabatour? Probably because his last name is not Smith or Jones.

Washington Post (AP): Endeavour Cleared for Wednesday's Launch

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I don't understand the context of your last statement. What do you mean?

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

Hint: men dressed in dark suits...

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

[Blackadder]Oh yes! I see, of course!... Brilliant![/Blackadder]

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants