Posted on 02/01/2003 2:25:26 PM PST by socal_parrot
By John Antczak
ASSOCIATED PRESS
12:03 a.m., February 1, 2003
LOS ANGELES – Space shuttle Columbia appeared to begin trailing fiery debris as it passed over Eastern California early Saturday, well before its destruction over Texas, according to a California Institute of Technology astronomer who witnessed its fiery transit.
Anthony Beasley observed the shuttle's re-entry from outside his home in Bishop, Calif., near Caltech's Owens Valley Radio Observatory, where he is project manager of the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter-wave Astronomy.
"As it tracked from west to east over the Owens Valley it was leaving a bright trail. As it actually moved over the valley there were a couple of flashes. ... Then we could see there were things clearly trailing the orbiter subsequent to that," Beasley said.
Beasley said he, his wife, Anne, and mother-in-law, Anne Finley, had gone outside in the early morning darkness to watch the re-entry from the small town 225 miles north of Los Angeles. He said the sky was clear and dark, and the shuttle was immediately visible when it cleared the Sierra Nevada peaks to the west of Bishop.
He said he had never witnessed a shuttle re-entry before and is not an authority on shuttles, but he immediately thought Columbia was having problems.
"In particular, there was one very clear event where there was a piece that backed off the orbiter. ... It was giving off its own light, then it slowly fell from visibility," he said.
Beasley said he thought the shuttle might be losing some of the heat-resistant tiles that protect it during the fiery re-entry. He said he did not learn of the shuttle's destruction until he went to the observatory and compared notes with two news photographers who had arranged to photograph the re-entry through a telescope.
Beasley said they compared notes and all agreed they had seen what he termed "the bright event, the third event."
"The analogy, I think, is it looked like the shuttle dropped a flare," he said.
He described the scene again: "Pretty soon after we started to see it track there were brief flashes of light. It would sort of flash a little bit and there was an indication of material trailing the orbiter. They would sort of disappear from view. ... That happened two or three times. One of these was very bright. It was a very clear thing. It separated itself from where the orbiter is. It sort of fell behind in the trail and it was burning itself. It was hot itself ... and then the orbiter continued heading toward Texas."
Exactly. This immediate CYA & debunk mode is what got Tommy Thompson in to tough trouble, over anthrax.
Remember that first man who got it in Florida and the talking point explanation?: Must have picked it up by drinking from streams out in the countryside, where he used to jog. (Get a grip.)
BTW, Check this out. It seems as if Richard Feynman was right.
But again, note that NASA has specifically mentioned that seeing "bright blobs" falling behind the shuttle as it re-enters is something that is seen even during normal re-entries, as the plasma around the shuttle builds and then "blows" off as it travels.
These sensors fed information to Mission Control and detected problems over California. The crew would not be aware of an underwing problems unless the information was fed to them. This isn't a car. There are more than four "guages". The thousands of sensors do not all feed to the crew.
Yeah, a plasma trail would not have excessively bright spots relative to the rest of the trail. Looks like tiles (or something) began ripping off over California leading to a burn-through over Texas a few minutes later when the re-entry was at maximum heat stage.
I'll go out on a limb a say that was ice that hit the wing at launch and not foam. You can see it spray. I wouldn't think a chunk of foam would spray after impacting the wing.
That picture you guys are going off of isn't a sideways shuttle, it's a point of light that's out of focus. I know it looks like a shuttle, but it's simply the lens playing tricks being that it's out of focus.
Uh huh. Not bloody likely that an out-of-focus point of light will be shuttle shaped, including the proper delta shape, a body flap, and OMS pods, among other things.
That would have been observed, understood, and immediately corrected. The ground guys watch that stuff very closely.
I'm sure you are right. The only difference is that the shuttle is quite high and perhaps the sound is not as noticeable as a jet, which is flying lower. I haven't heard a sonic boom in years. We used to hear them all the time. Either I am going deaf, or I no longer live in a flight path! Or perhaps regulations have been enforced to limit sonic booms in populated areas.
Look at the picture, it's perfectly symetrical. The shuttle being 40 miles in the air would not be that distinct anyway with a video camera. Besides, the shuttle has 3 main engines in a triangle shape in the center of the rear. If your picture was a distinct picture of the shuttle, it shows two main engines widely separated and too far up. The picture is simply an out-of-focus point of light.
On top of all this, it's physically impossible for the shuttle to go 16 times the speed of sound at 207,000 feet intact in any position but nose first. It would instantaneously disentegrate in any other position.
It's not "perfectly" symmetrical. There are dissimilarites between right and left sides. Look, e.g., at the broken right corner of the "body flap". And even so -- the Shuttle was symmetrical, so we'd rather expect to see symmetry, right?
The shuttle being 40 miles in the air would not be that distinct anyway with a video camera.
True enough. A very good professional camera might be able to get a reasonable shot, but this does seem to be a bit far away.
Besides, the shuttle has 3 main engines in a triangle shape in the center of the rear. If your picture was a distinct picture of the shuttle, it shows two main engines widely separated and too far up.
The two "nozzles" and the bulges they're on, are exactly where you'd expect to see the OMS engines and OMS pods, and they're properly placed with respect to the thing that looks like the body flap.
The three mains are below and between the OMS engines. If a Shuttle was actually flying sideways, I'd expect them to have been torn off. There's no indication of a hole there -- I cannot explain that.
The picture is simply an out-of-focus point of light.
Unlikely that an out-of-focus point of light would so closely match the known and identifiable features of a space shuttle.
On top of all this, it's physically impossible for the shuttle to go 16 times the speed of sound at 207,000 feet intact in any position but nose first. It would instantaneously disentegrate in any other position.
Untrue. The Shuttle never flies "nose first" during entry. It flies belly first. The "sideways" flight could be initiated by a failure to properly come out of one of the S-turns. Indications are that the control surfaces on the left wing were not behaving properly, so it's quite likely that the soon-to-die Shuttle had a period of sideways motion.
Flying sideways, it would certainly break up, but not necessarily "instantaneously." I've seen video of the far more fragile external tank tumbling through a similar flight regime for a long time before it finally broke up.
And, of course, the Shuttle did break up only a few seconds after this video was shot -- so your only argument is that word "instantaneous."
Believe what you will. That is not a distinct shuttle, it is an out of focus point of light.
The two "nozzles" and the bulges they're on, are exactly where you'd expect to see the OMS engines and OMS pods, and they're properly placed with respect to the thing that looks like the body flap.
Believe what you will.
Unlikely that an out-of-focus point of light would so closely match the known and identifiable features of a space shuttle.
Believe what you will.
Untrue. The Shuttle never flies "nose first" during entry. It flies belly first.
The first point of the shuttle to reach an eastern plane as it flies east is the nose, at a 40 degree angle but it is the nose. I consider that "nose-first".
The "sideways" flight could be initiated by a failure to properly come out of one of the S-turns. Indications are that the control surfaces on the left wing were not behaving properly, so it's quite likely that the soon-to-die Shuttle had a period of sideways motion.
Believe what you will. At mach 16 at 207,000 feet, the shuttle would've instantaneously disentegratated when it moved even slightly away from nose-first.
Flying sideways, it would certainly break up, but not necessarily "instantaneously." I've seen video of the far more fragile external tank tumbling through a similar flight regime for a long time before it finally broke up.
Was it going mach 16?
And, of course, the Shuttle did break up only a few seconds after this video was shot -- so your only argument is that word "instantaneous."
And I stand by that wholeheartedly. There is no way the shuttle can be sideways intact at mach 16 at 207,000 feet. Not even slightly sideways.
Your nose first argument assumes controlled flight. But of course, I'm not claiming it was controlled flight at this point.
Was it going mach 16?
Yes. And some of it was "sideways," too.
As for the rest of your silly post, believe what you will. Your unwillingness to even to concede the obvious appearance of OMS pods and body flaps leads me to believe you're out of your depth.
I think you've forgotten what we were talking about. I said the shuttle cannot fly at mach 16 at any position other than nose first. You said the shuttle flies belly first. I said the first point of the shuttle to reach an eastern plane as it flies east is the nose when it's in a normal descent, so I call that nose-first. I'll reiterate that it is impossible for the shuttle to fly intact at mach 16 at 207,000 feet in any position other than nose first as I've described it. Any other deviation even slightly off from nose first would cause instantaneous disentegration. There is no way it could complete a half turn without disentegrating at mach 16 at 207,000 feet. The picture is not of a sideways shuttle. It is an out-of-focus point of light.
Yes. And some of it was "sideways," too.
The External Fuel Tank is jettisoned in space and burns up in the upper atmosphere. It can tumble intact in space but not in the atmosphere.
As for the rest of your silly post,...
? What's wrong with you?
...believe what you will. Your unwillingness to even to concede the obvious appearance of OMS pods and body flaps leads me to believe you're out of your depth.
You admit that a video camera cannot distinguish a shuttle at these distances and then try to say the image is a distinct shuttle that is sideways at mach 16 at 207,000 feet. I don't think it's me that's out of any depth.
Fox showed this video for a few times until around 1:00 PM pacific time and than cut off the first @7 seconds of this video when shwoing it again. Why? Anyone else recall this amature video?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.