Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Space Shuttle Columbia disaster is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
The change should be made, because that's what happened. The foam strike put a big hole in the RCC (Reinforced Carbon Carbon) panel on the left wing’s leading edge. This is covered extensively in the CAIB report and there's plenty of video of the test made during the accident investigation. 71.219.70.239 (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey there @71.219.70.239, I'm not too involved with this particular discussion, but I'll point out that this Wikipedia article extensively covers the root cause of the disaster including the extent and location of the damage, and that the phrase "leading edge" is used four times in the article already. If you'd like I suppose you can put the words "leading edge" in there a few more times, just as long as its not too much. SpacePod9 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"After the mission, the NASA Program Requirements Control Board designated the issue as an in-flight anomaly that was corrected with the planned improvement for the SRB ablator."
This sentence is unclear as to whether or not the "planned improvement" was made. If so, when? I think this is an important piece of context for discussion of the known design flaw that caused the disaster. SchrodingersMinou (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SchrodingersMinou: the Columbia accident was caused by ET foam, not SRB foam. The SRB foam was updated. The accident review source does note, however: The Board notes the distinctly different ways in which the STS-27R and STS-107 debris strike events were treated. After the discovery of the debris strike on Flight Day Two of STS-27R, the crew was immediately directed to inspect the vehicle. More severe thermal damage – perhaps even a burn-through – may have occurred were it not for the aluminum plate at the site of the tile loss. Fourteen years later, when a debris strike was discovered on Flight Day Two of STS-107, Shuttle Program management declined to have the crew inspect the Orbiter for damage, declined to request onorbit imaging, and ultimately discounted the possibility of a burn-through. In retrospect, the debris strike on STS-27R is a “strong signal” of the threat debris posed that should have been considered by Shuttle management when STS-107 suffered a similar debris strike. The Board views the failure to do so as an illustration of the lack of institutional memory in the Space Shuttle Program that supports the Boardʼs claim, discussed in Chapter 7, that NASA is not functioning as a learning organization.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As a follow up to the discussion already made by SpacePod9 further up on this talk page's section, the official reel taken from the Fort Hood camera source was decidedly used, however was reverted by the user Ahecht under the reasons:
"Animations are typically not put in the infobox, since it's supposed to include "at a glance" information"
However I have yet to find any evidence outside of this being purely his, or commonly agreed upon opinion being written, that must absolutely no other options of files outside of .svg, .JPG, .PNG etc. are allowed to be used for the info-box. I shall need a citation for that regarding Wikipedia Standards of Editing.
As examples, the articles regarding Vietnam War's Operation Rolling Thunder and even US nuclear weapons tests (eg. Trinity nuclear test, New Mexico 1945) have chosen to use animation for their infobox image and have kept it that way for some time. Seeing as their page edit history has made no reversions, nor any objections in each of their respective talk-pages, I assume it can be deemed acceptable. Roboutique (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The new file coming from a government source (PD-USGov/No Copyright concerns), and being both accurate depiction, and within the context of the article, should therefore be fine for use, unless a better alternative can be suggested. Here are sampled comparisons of the current, and proposed new infobox:
Damage to the left wing's edge by debris from the external tank during launch
Outcome
Loss of Columbia and seven astronauts; Space Shuttle fleet grounded for 29 months and subsequently retired after completion of the International Space Station.
Damage to the left wing's edge by debris from the external tank during launch
Outcome
Loss of Columbia and seven astronauts; Space Shuttle fleet grounded for 29 months and subsequently retired after completion of the International Space Station.
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
