[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.

[Brookhaven]

We wouldn't be having this controversy over the foam had NASA notified the shuttle of the incident. They could have inspected the wing while they were in orbit to determine if there was any damage.

I don't buy the theory that they didn't notify them because there isn't anything they could have done about it. Even if they couldn't have affected repairs, they could have waited until another shuttle was sent to bring them down (they were scheduled for 18 days, they could have stretched that quite a bit if they were careful.) I find it hard to believe that NASA (working night and day on an emergency basis) couldn't get another shuttle up there in 3 weeks.

At the very least, if you are going to fly a crippled ship home, you at least have the right to know that so you have some time to wrap things up should things go for the worse (as they did here.)

[Ditto]

From reading this article, I came to exactly the opposite conclusion.

Put on your heat resistant tiles -- you will be flamed. The "experts" here have already concluded that the insulation caused it and NASA is in total cover-up mode.

[dtel]

I'm with you.
From the video, it also seems the foams strikes the underside of the wing, not the junction at the wing and fuselage.

[Cold Heat]

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.

Well worth repeating, over and over again.

I concur and have viewed and studied the loop. It looks like it hit the back side at a narrow angle(maybe 2 or 3 degrees.)

It definitely hit toward the center of the wing span, and at a relatively low speed, contrary to many. (maybe 100MPH)

If this is correct, the new pics indicate that the foam did not damage the craft.

[ez]

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.

What if, instead of damaging the wing by smashing it, the foam torqued the wing backwards and caused damage at the front end of the wing-fusilage joint? Seems like the wing would be particularly well-reinforced there, but this WAS the 28th mission.

What if the constant stress on that wing joint weakened it over time?

[Balata]

The initial NASA Mission Management Team (MMT) assessment of the debris impact made Jan. 18, two days after launch, noted "The strike appears to have occurred on or relatively close to the "wing glove" near the orbiter fuselage.

The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC bolt-on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage.

The second MMT summary analyzing the debris hit was made on Jan. 20 and had no mention of the leading-edge wing glove area. That report was more focused on orbiter black tiles on the vehicle's belly. The third and final summary issued on Jan. 27 discusses the black tiles again, but also specifically says "Damage to the RCC [wing leading edge] should be limited to [its] coating only and have no mission impact." Investigators in Houston are trying to match the location of the debris impact with the jagged edge shown in the Air Force imagery.

This tells me they made three assesments of the situation.

The first on Jan 18, two days after the launch, which states the strike appears to have occurred on or relative close to the "wing glove" area near the orbital fuselage.

The second, on Jan 20 which made no mention of the wing glove area.

And finally the third, on Jan 27 which also neglected to mention the wing glove area.

My question is, why did they leave the area they initially though was struck out of their subsequent two assesments? It looks to me like overlooking first impressions.

[jpsb]

I've (almost from the start) been leaning towards space junk or small (very small) meteorite.

[unspun]

It looked to me that the impact was pretty forceful. Is it too much of a stretch to say it could have flexed the wing, causing damage?