Talk:STS-26

Inconsistency - thermal protection system

In section 2, Mission Summary, we state that "The orbiter sustained only minor Thermal Protection System tile damage..." (2nd paragraph). In section 2.3 Damage to Thermal Protection, we say that "Discovery suffered severe damage to its thermal protection tiles in the underwing area. Post-flight analysis showed that the impact of a 12-inch long piece of cork insulation during ascent was the culprit. The origin of the debris was the forward field joint on the right-hand SRB. The damage was such that, during re-entry, the thermal protection tile eroded almost completely.[2] A similar chain of events ultimately led to the loss of Columbia fifteen years later."

These two claims are in conflict with one another, but I lack the expertise to figure out which one is right. Banality (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

By coincidence I spotted that as well. You and I appear to be the only editors in five years who have actually read the article. We're a cut above. I've taken out the first half of the initial sentence because the second section is at least sourced. And yet I can't help but wonder if the original editor confused this mission with STS-27, which definitely had major tile damage, seemingly for the exact same reason. EDIT: No, in fact NASA did a damage report for STS-26R which does jibe with the paragraph. The PDF does talk about damage to orbiter from cork falling off the right-hand SRB. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Bailout

The article describes STS-26 as "the first mission with bailout capacity since STS-4" but says nothing more about it. On STS-4 the crew had ejection seats, which as far as I know were only fitted to Columbia. How did STS-26's baily capacity work, and how was it different from the system used post-STS4 / pre-STS-26? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)