|
Stardate
20030624.1631 (On Screen): In a conclusion I think few will find surprising, it now appears that Columbia was lost because foam insulation broke loose from its external fuel tank during boost and struck its wing, causing damage to the ceramic tiles on the wing which resulted in catastrophic failure during reentry.
The foam on the fuel tank is sprayed on. In 1997 the formulation used was changed. The new version of the foam seems to be much less satisfactory and has a greater tendency to come off, and this change may end up being the "root cause" of the deaths of 7 good people.
So why was the foam changed? The new foam is "environmentally friendly". The older formulation utilized Freon, the new one doesn't. And the danger from foam fragments was identified five years ago from analysis of the first flight to use the newer foam formulation.
They should have changed back immediately once that had been found. They should change back now.
Update: Alex writes to point to a page which says that Columbia was actually using an older tank which had the old version of the foam on it. I hadn't heard of this before.
Update: Mike points out,
The page indicates that the newer Superlightweight design was introduced in 1998, at the same time as the introduction of the newer foam.
The page also indicates that, while Columbia flew with the older design tank, it was actually manufactured in Nov 2000.
Given those dates, it is plausible that the tank could have been made with either style of foam, but it doesn't categorically state which was used. At least, not in the vicinity of the FAQ you'd linked to...
include
+force_include -force_exclude
|
