Posted on 02/01/2003 5:50:13 PM PST by hope
'Major Systems Failure' Indicated">
'Major Systems Failure' Indicated
By Susan Jones and Scott Hogenson
CNSNews.com Staff
February 01, 2003
(CNSNews.com) - A senior government official says NASA's data shows a "major systems failure," CBS News reported Saturday afternoon.
Videotape showed a large piece of something coming off the orbiter immediately prior to its mid-air breakup over Texas Saturday morning. NASA reportedly is focusing on the space shuttle Columbia's left wing as the possible source of the catastrophic failure.
NASA said there is no indication that the breakup was caused by anything or anyone on the ground.
However, press reports noted that during the launch of the space shuttle Columbia 16 days ago, a piece of insulation came loose and appeared to hit the left wing of the shuttle. It's not clear what the extent of the damage may have been, if there was any damage at all.
Temperature stress on the shuttle is highest during the re-entry period. It was on re-entry that Mission Control lost communications with Columbia.
Space shuttles are protected from the heat of re-entry by an intricate system of heat tiles, according to Robert G. Melton, a professor of aerospace engineering at Pennsylvania State University.
According to Melton's research, "shuttle orbiters use a system of 30,000 tiles made of a silica compound that does not ablate, but does rapidly radiate heat away from the orbiter. These tiles can be repaired in space."
Melton's research notes that the "major disadvantages are fragility," among the heat tiles, which are "easily damaged before launch and by orbital debris; lots of tile damage due to debris since anti-satellite tests in mid-80s.
Another shortcoming of the tiles, according to Melton's research, is their complexity and the fact that "many people (are) needed to manually attach tiles to orbiter in a tedious and time-consuming process, and to inspect them all before launch."
Melton's research indicates that during the re-entry period, maximum temperatures are recorded at an altitude of 40 miles with a speed of 15,000 miles per hour.
It is also during this time that communications are routinely disrupted because of ionization, which is caused by the high temperatures and "creates an impenetrable barrier to radio signals," according to Melton's research.
According to NASA, contact with Columbia was lost when the shuttle was flying at roughly 200,000 feet at a speed of more than 12,000 miles per hour.
I've watched that video numerous times now - in slow motion, frame-by-frame, etc. I've also seen the photos of what a Sony CCD Aperture looks like. If you watch the entire portion of the video clip that includes the zoom-in, you can plainly see that you are looking at aperture reflection. Sure, a couple of frames may make you believe that you're looking at something vaguely the shape of the shuttle - and your mind picks up other details and fills in the blanks to make you see something you're not really seeing. Kind of like the evil-looking face in the smoke of the WTC tower before it collapsed.
LOL! Every picture you're showing is from the top. A camera on the ground would show .... the bottom, from an angle.
There are identifiable Shuttle features in exactly the places they ought to be, and they are rather obvious. It's not something that "happens" to look like the Shuttle. It is the Shuttle.
But you can believe whatever you want.
Maybe both wings had already been ripped off at that point?
Like others here (and on the previous thread) , I was struck by the similarity of the zoomed image to a rear-view of the shuttle from below, However:
I have a Panasonic video editing system, and I spent considerable time this afternoon analyzing this video sequence -- on video recorded directly off-satellite on one of the editing decks (using the deck as tuner -- no intervening TV set).
I have also spent a like amount of time analyzing the Quicktime video clip under discussion.
As a result of these analyses -- and FreedomCalls' analysis of the aperture artifact,
I now conclude that FreedomCalls' analysis is the correct one, and the shuttle could not have been in a 90-degree starboard yaw mode for any finite length of time.
Although the zoomed image does bear a fortuitous, superficial resemblance to a rear-view of the Shuttle, consider the following:
Justa, GRRRRR , et al, don't feel bad; it had me going for a while, too.
However, IMO, Searchers should be looking for a large (possibly tail-sized) piece of debris early in the debris field -- possibly west of Dallas.
FreedomCalls: Nice work!
TXnMA (in Northeast Texas -- just north of the debris field)
And things have already been breaking off at this point -- perhaps mvpel is correct that the wingtips are already gone.
If the wings are ripped apart, why does the image in the video appear to be flying sideways, level and smooth at Mach 18? It seems to me that if anything came apart at that speed, BAM, the entire orbiter would be ripped to tiny pieces instantly. That's not what this optical illusion shows.
Funny things happen behind a shock wave. And in case you forgot, the Shuttle did break into pieces within a few seconds of when this video was taken.
Now: if you're going to tell us this isn't the Shuttle, you need to explain why recognizable parts of the vehicle are exactly where they ought to be in this optical illusion.
This is the Space Shuttle Columbia, not the Star Ship Enterprise. It does not have neeto gimmicks like deflector shields or inertial dampening fields to allow it to fly sideways at Mach 18.
First: you've got to realize that it's behind a big-ass shock wave: it's not simple aerodynamics. It's hard to say what would happen to the vehicle within the shock cone, especially if the vertical stabilizer is off, and maybe the wingtips, too. I've seen videos of re-entering External Tanks -- far more fragile things -- that did all sorts of funny things before they broke up.
It is indisputable, however, that the thing came apart very soon after this video was taken, so the only issue here is whether it can stay relatively intact for a few seconds in this attitude. The ET videos tell me that seconds is not unrealistic.
I've already pointed out the OMS pods and body flap (no main engines to be seen....), not to mention the unmistakable shape of the vehicle itself.
I'm inclined to believe this really is the Shuttle, and not finnman's optical illusion.
Well, your details are unfortunately wrong.
The engines I referred to were the OMS engines, which correspond to those two black areas on the upper white bulges. They're exactly where OMS engines should be.
I agree that the whole thing looks wider than it should -- and this may well be an optical illusion, or perhaps an artifact of how video is shot. And the wingtips may also be gone, which would exaggerate the width.
The fact remains, however, that there are recognizable Shuttle parts, and they are exactly where they ought to be, and the view looks right from the angle at which it would have been shot.
Your "optical illusion" must have somehow included symmetric OMS engines, a body flap, a nose, and a very close approximation of the proper delta-wing shape, and the smooth curvature of the wing leading edge toward the nose.
That's one amazing optical illusion!! It's far easier to accept that this is a real image of a real Shuttle.
We can agree that the apparent width is due to atmospheric and/or shock wave distortion.
That said, the OMS pods are in the right spot. The OMS nozzles are right where they should be. The body flap is right where it should be. The nose is right where it should be. The leading edges of the wing curve toward the nose, just as they should.
It's the Shuttle, not an illusion of the Shuttle.
You've never taken gas dynamics, have you?
In a professional camera, the iris is a diaphragm contained within the lens, and is composed of several (at least 5) blades, which maintain a near circular aperture under all settings.
To see something at that altitude you'd need something far bigger than even a commercial television camera (and I think FOX attributed this to a person who was using a regular camcorder).
You are fooling yourself (as I was for a while). Go look at FreedomCalls' #126 on this thread -- and then re-read point 2 of my #108 here. That ain't any a$$-on shuttle you're looking at -- it is a camera-aperture distortion artifact of a bright point light source!
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.