[trebb]

NASA's been trying to discredit the foam damage theory, but it looks more and more like that was the root cause. I heard a report the other day that said the foam never broke off until they made the manufacturer "take freon out of the recipe" to make it more environmentally friendly. Chalk another one up to being too overzealously environmentally whacko...

[e_engineer]

NASA's been trying to discredit the foam damage theory, but it looks more and more like that was the root cause.

From reading this article, I came to exactly the opposite conclusion. This excerpt from the article says the damage in the Air Force photograph is at the wing root:

show a jagged edge on the left inboard wing structure near where the wing begins to intersect the fuselage

But the photos of the foam striking the wing during lift-off show the foam striking farther out on the wing. This makes me tend to agree with NASA's decision to keep looking rather than settle for the foam damage explanation.

[I_dmc]

how could it be foam damage? that's not where the debris hit on launch.

[MississippiMan]

Chalk another one up to being too overzealously environmentally whacko...

The latest sacrifice on the altar of political correctness. Sickening and so sad.

MM

[tophat9000]

NASA's been trying to discredit the foam damage theory, but it looks more and more like that was the root cause.

I agree but I am starting to think there might more to in then just foam insulation on the tank....

If there was a bad spot of foam insulation on the tank could moisture have built up underneath it on the tank skin an froze in to a good size chunk of ice

Bad foam insulation on the tank could be the root cause but in its self not the cause of damage on the bulk of the wing...

I.E. Bad foam insulation in tank... alows ice to form on tank... ice and foam insulation come of tank and hit wing... hard ice causes bulk of the wing damage