Shuttle Pic--SIDE VIEW!

WFAA | 02/01/03 | GRRRRR

[GRRRRR]

This is the picture that Rintense and I have seen...from the WFAA video...you can see the shuttle from the REAR clearly, and it is traveling from FRAME RIGHT TO FRAME LEFT--look closely, you can certainly see the shuttle's main engines at the rear, also the PROFILE of the shuttle from underneath...and in the video, it's moving in the direction of the left wing...

[jaugust]

Thanks. Have been watching. I have a TIVO type cable box for digital cable. Looked at the image frame by frame. My initial interpretation is that the image is focused, and then as the camera zoomed back it became out of focus. Those who are experts in optics have said that this something called an "artifact". To my eyes I can see an outline of the shuttle wing. But I will admit to not being even 51.285% certain ;). And the news programs aren't even discussing this. So, I will draw no conclusions, either from the video or from the comments made here.

Regards

[Justa]

"And in this attitude it makes its series of "s" turns to help slow it down. These include a 70 deg bank angle left and right[e.a.] while doing the turns. Four turns if I remember correctly.

70 degrees to plane is quite steep imo and could explain the appearance the perpindicular attitude in the video (if appearances are to be believed). As the object's attitude does not change through the video sequence, yet remains nearly perpindicular to the flight path it would seem it was no longer under control at that point. Then there's the semi-rectangular object spinning away from it in the lower right. Imo it appears to be proportional in size and shape to the shuttle's tail. I don't have the ability to capture frames from an .mpg otherwise I would post some of the frames which show the spinning object in focus with the main image.

If this this scenario is true it would indicate the shuttle's tail broke during a righthand/Southerly S-manuever leaving the craft perpindicular to the slipstream. As the video depicts it's L-side is the leading edge along it's flightpath which correlates to the thermal telemetry.

[Redcloak]

Nice work. Most people don't realize that when an optical system is out of focus, the entrance pupil will cast a shadow onto the image plane. That shadow is shaped like the entrance pupil.

(The entrance pupil of an optical system is the clear area one sees when looking through the system from the front, usually an aperture stop. The exit pupil is that clear area as seen from the rear. To easily see this, hold a pair of binoculars in front of you at arm's length. The part you can see through when looking at the front of the binoculars is the entrance pupil. Size matters; bigger is better. The part you can see through when looking at the rear is the exit pupil. Again size matters; in the case of the binoculars, you want this area to match the pupils of your eyes. (With a pair of binoculars, this happens at the point where you hold your eyes.) In the case of a video camera, you want it to be the same size as the CCD chip. To clearly see the entrance pupil in a camcorder, you have to take things apart, as FreedomCalls has shown.)

[OneLoyalAmerican]

Greetings FreedomCalls, Redcloak, FReepers, et al:

You've presented facts and obviously expert witness level testimony. Thanks for educating me. FR is well worth the $10 month investment.

[Justa]

I'm sorry but I believe you are wrong. If you watch the video you can clearly see that regardless of the clarity or depiction of the main object that the smaller object which tumbling away to the lower is the shuttle's tail. In one frame, about 2/5s thru the sequence, even the black marking lines of the rudder are visible! It appears as if the tail broke off 1/3 the way up with the broken piece taking the full length of rudder with it.

If you look for it you will see it. I do not believe I am mistaken on this.

[wasp69]

You guys'll have to forgive my language on a terribly bad day but a whole grip of posters in this thread turned out to be some real dumbasses.

You aren't the only one having a bad day and a post like this, without a shred of anything to refute what others who disagree with you say, is pure Bullsh!t. Here is what I had to say:

Ok, I am not a scientist (nor do I play one on television), but I have a question for those who are and may have more knowledge than me.

Did anyone see the video of the shuttle close up before it came apart? When I saw it, I thought "wait a minute, am I supposed to be seeing the stern of this craft?" After the close up, the camera zoomed out and then.... Now, We all pretty much know that the shuttle puts it's nose in the air and uses it's bottom to slow down. We have also learned that while the nose is up, the pilot does banking maneuvers to bleed off speed.

The NASA officials said that they got "off the scale low" readings from several sensors and they said that to observers those readings would look as if "the wires were cut." While I am not a scientist, I am an electronics tech and to me those indications say the wires were disconnected by some means. In this case I'm thinking burnt through.

In the particular video shot I am referring to, we should have seen either the top or the bottom of the shuttle and not the rear.

If they were making banking maneuvers and wiring harnesses were burnt through enough to make the elevators on the left side fail, wouldn't the air pressure and speed cause the shuttle to yaw enough so they were coming down sideways and wouldn't that cause enough strain on the airframe to cause it to come apart?

What say all of you?

Now, what I would love to see is the time correlation between when that video was shot and when NASA lost contact. Beyond that, maybe you can tell the rest of us "dumbasses" how it is that a determination can be made by image experts based upon images taken of a television by a Sony camcorder and those images posted here. Especially when the shot in question was originally made by a news station from an airplane. I'm not an optical engineer but I do know the visible difference between home equipment and commercial equipment. Not only that maybe you can educate the rest of us "dumbasses", well maybe just me, that the second that the images taken were in focus enough for (at least me) to make out 3 main engines on the back of that "optical illusion". I am talking about what was on Fox, not posted on this thread. Finally, maybe you can explain away the large, flat, tumbling object to the lower right of the "optical illusion". Bottom line, this is a place to exchange ideas not name call.

[Donna Lee Nardo]

Damn "left-wings" are always the problem, aren't they?

[jaugust]

Link to shuttle info:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/landing.html

[nowings]

Any other day I'd think that was funny..let's not stoop to their level..thanks

[CyberAnt]

"excessive heating"

Hmmm? I believe that would have been the case if they were reentering sideways instead of the normal tilted front way.

[wasp69]

Here is NASA saying the tail rudder fell away. I wonder what video they were watching? Do you think maybe it's the one that was not going to be used for anything by NASA?

[CyberAnt]

I'm seeing it the opposite way - the left wing is to the left of the picture and the plume is off the right wing - but there is normally a plume during reentry.

To me it says the plane is reentering sideways instead of forwards.

Houston ... we have a problem

[VaBthang4]

The Official "Tin-Foil" Thread The Official "Tin-Foil" Thread The Official "Tin-Foil" Thread The Official "Tin-Foil" Thread The Official "Tin-Foil" Thread The Official "Tin-Foil" Thread

[jaugust]

I'm looking for a second opinion from another who might be an optics expert. Then I may be convinced one way or the other.

[wasp69]

You aren't the only one having a bad day and a post like this, without a shred of anything to refute what others who disagree with you say, is pure Bullsh!t.

Well? Are you going to educate us "dumbasses" and "idiots" or are you just going to pitch rocks? Put up or shut up?

[Kevin Curry]

Are you saying the entire image is an artifact?

[Kevin Curry]

The image is awfully stable for a shuttle travelling sideways at mach 18, don't you think? Common sense tells you that at that speed (heck, at almost any flying speed> the tiniest deviation from the designed nose-first beeline path will cause immediate catastrophic tumbling and disntegration--certainly not the several second rock-steady sideways glide posited on this thread..

[jaugust]

Perhaps only when travelling in the more dense part of the atmosphere. But up at 200 thou. ft. the thinner air might not be enough for the shuttle to react to it entirely.

[Kevin Curry]

At that speed the air friction--even at that altitude--is heating the exterior of the shuttle to thousands of degrees. Stick your hand out of a car window at 5 mph, then 30 mph, then 60 mph, and if you dare and can a get a ride--200 mph. Try to move your hand and feel the force against it at each speed. Has the air really gotten any denser? No. Has the force (air friction) against your hand increased? You betcha. Many times over.

A spacecraft with the size and surface area of the Challenger travelling at 12,500 mph is going to experience unbelievably powerful forces from the atmosphere even at 200,000 feet. It will not survive even a split-second at 90 degrees off beeline-center.

[PokeyJoe]

Given the apeture, and the unfocused nature - FreedomCalls nailed it.