It would appear that the much earlier speculation on these pages about the cause and effect is now being borne out by CAIB conclusions. However there are still some areas that they've yet to reach:
a. A sacrificial silicone-based elastomeric wedge-shaped leading edge for the inboard areas of the Orbiter's wings that would protect the easily shatterable RCC sections from launch debris strikes. This covering would burn off in the early stages of re-entry and being a simple wedge-shape, would not unduly affect shuttle performance during an in atmosphere launch abort.
b. The solution to in situ in orbit repairs. The two long-handled over-centre locking clamps for mounting a (say) 15ft cable along the leading edge and enabling an EVA astronaut to apply a two part exothermic one-time repair patch.
c. The projection ahead of the inboard left wing leading edge shown in the Starfire Photo is obviously due to the super-heated plasma and the
flat-plate effect (and
here). This is something that NASA is yet to come to terms with. (quote:
"The theory is also supported by a photograph taken by astronomers in Albuquerque, N.M., showing what appears to be a damaged, jagged area of the left wing.")
d. It is only a short step from here (this quote) to relating the super-heated plasma to the
flat-plate effect.
"The leading edge theory is supported by several other pieces of evidence. Recovered leading edge panels now at Kennedy Space Center in Florida show that the attachment points were melted, rather than broken." and
"The wing was being eaten from the inside out," board member Roger Tetrault said. Similarly, investigators cannot explain why a piece of the left wing that adjoined the wheel well shows signs that a stream of hot gas had spewed out of the wing. Obviously the superheated plasma was entering forcefully at the leading edge RCC breach. Entry elsewhere would not explain the jagged projection ahead of the inboard L.E. or the "eating out" of the wheel-well interior....or the molten aluminium that was latterly being sprayed over the Shuttle's exterior by the plasma cloud (and embedded in the leading edges of non RCC tiles)
e. From the Washington Post Sunday 23 Feb 03 [page A20]
"A worst-case analysis by Boeing Co engineers of the potential damage caused by the tank insulation estimated that the material could have hit the wing at more than 400mph and could have included pieces of ice which would have done more damage than the foam alone. A NASA engineer calculated that if the material was iced, it could have hit the shuttle with a force equivalent to that of a 500lb safe hitting the wing at 365mph."
Columbia moved to launch-pad 39a on 9 Dec 02. Columbia launched 17 Jan 03. By my reckoning it spent 39 days in the coldest temperatures Florida has had on offer in the last 100 years. The fact that, over many temperature cycles, the ET foam "worked" (and then cracked to its substrate due to ingress of moisture) should surprise no-one. Once the tank was filled with liquid hydrogen any trapped water would become adhesive ice and hold the ET foam in place (although cracked) until two things happened - aerodynamic heating and the drop [below the level of the foam's cracks] of the hydrogen fuel (as it was being used up during the launch). At that point (approaching about 400 kts) any weakened area of foam substrate (still stiffened by its water content in the form of ice) would lose its icy adhesion, detach and head for the Orbiter. The aerodynamics of the combo unfortunately had it hitting at what would prove to be the Orbiter's weakest point (the easily shatterable leading edge RCC tiles just forward of the wheel well's outer forward corner).