Skip to comments.
'Major Systems Failure' Indicated
CNSNews.com ^
| 2-01-03
Posted on 02/01/2003 5:50:13 PM PST by hope
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-162 next last
To: TXnMA
That ain't any a$$-on shuttle you're looking at -- it is a camera-aperture distortion artifact of a bright point light source! Which just happens to look exactly like a Shuttle, right down to the OMS pods. Riiiighht.
121
posted on
02/01/2003 11:36:59 PM PST
by
r9etb
To: Justa
I'm sorry but I just don't see what you're talking about. I've been seeing this on Fox all day and I thought it was pity that the tape contained what looks to me like a badly focused zoom.
I'm most definitely not an expert. And if one comes along and says that what we see here is the tail breaking off I won't be able to argue. But until then I just don't see it.
To: tubebender
At take off, they ask all the crews to film the what do you call it -- booster separation?
123
posted on
02/01/2003 11:37:22 PM PST
by
Howlin
(A terrible mind is a sight to see.)
To: Erasmus; r9etb
The video was attributed to WFAA, but from what I can gather it was taken by a member of their staff with a personal camcorder while at home or on the way to an assignment.
Let's also consider something very obvious here -- if you were out looking up at the sky with a camcorder, and you were filming the space shuttle hurtling sideways through the air in a doomed re-entry, would you zoom out so that you could no longer see the object in detail?
To: Justa
At the speed at which that shuttle was traveling, there would have been no details visible at all even from a high-powered lens. Even a normal re-entry involves a lot of intense heat due to friction between the shuttle and the atmosphere.
To: r9etb
You've never taken gas dynamics, have you? Yes, and an asymmetrical object (a knife-edge [wing] attached off center to a bluff body [fuselage]) does not generate a symmetrical, stable shock wave!
126
posted on
02/01/2003 11:41:51 PM PST
by
TXnMA
((No Longer!!!))
To: r9etb; Richard Kimball
Richard:
1. Why do we use rockets to launch spacecraft?
r9: You've got to use something to get from zero to 25,400 feet/sec, and rockets work damned well -- especially if you're putting big stuff into orbit. The advantage of rockets is that you can stage them -- drop off the parts you don't need once you're done with them. To do the same with a "space plane" means you're going to launch 250,000 lb into orbit, and bring 200,000 lb of it back to Earth. (This is what the Shuttle does....)
Let's not overlook the fact that a substantial part of the ascent cannot use jet engines, because they breathe air to operate, and above a certain altitude, there ain't none.
Many proposals for a jet 'truck' to take the spacecraft high into (certainly not above!) the atmosphere and to a modest (~500kt) speed have been floated, and small satellites have in fact been launched this way. However, nobody knows (yet) how to make a practical jet truck big enough to take a craft the size of the shuttle high enough and fast enough to be worthwhile.
127
posted on
02/01/2003 11:42:46 PM PST
by
Erasmus
To: Alberta's Child
if you were out looking up at the sky with a camcorder, and you were filming the space shuttle hurtling sideways through the air in a doomed re-entry, would you zoom out so that you could no longer see the object in detail? 1. They didn't know it was doomed.
2. They zoomed out because they saw a second trail and wanted to get it in the picture.
3. From what I read, WFAA was setting up for a different shoot, and the camera guy took the opportunity to shoot the Shuttle, too. Sounds like he used his pro-quality camera.
128
posted on
02/01/2003 11:43:41 PM PST
by
r9etb
To: Justa
Now I understand what you're talking about. However I don't believe the delta shape is the shuttle. It doesn't look substantial to me, it looks more like glare.
To: TXnMA
G'nite. I've gotta get up in the morning. Ramble on; I'll check this thread tomorrow, and if anyone has said anything sensible I may respond...
130
posted on
02/01/2003 11:44:47 PM PST
by
TXnMA
((No Longer!!!))
To: finnman69
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. The reason why not: 207,00 feet.
131
posted on
02/01/2003 11:45:53 PM PST
by
Erasmus
To: TXnMA
Yes, and an asymmetrical object (a knife-edge [wing] attached off center to a bluff body [fuselage]) does not generate a symmetrical, stable shock wave! Never said it did. I merely pointed out that a body behind a shock wave can do weird things. BTW, it looks as if the wingtips may be gone -- and much of that "knife edge" problem with them. And the Shuttle broke into pieces very soon after this video was taken.
132
posted on
02/01/2003 11:47:26 PM PST
by
r9etb
To: finnman69
Urk, that's
207,000 feet. Of altitude.
The hostile environment is as much thermal as aerodynamic at that point.
133
posted on
02/01/2003 11:47:59 PM PST
by
Erasmus
To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
The Titanic sank from a leak in its hull.
134
posted on
02/01/2003 11:54:38 PM PST
by
Barnacle
(Not just your everyday marine crustacean of the subclass Cirripedia)
To: r9etb
If any aircraft is flying through the air sideways, then it is doomed. I think anyone with an IQ over 30 would know this.
You also have to remember that the shuttle lost contact with the ground BEFORE it was over Texas. There were some folks here on FR who reported from California that it was already starting to break up when it passed over them.
To: r9etb
I think anyone with an IQ over 30 would know this. I'm referring, of course, to anyone who might have hypothetically been filming such a descent, not you. LOL.
To: sam_paine
If they would have known it was that bad they'd have had them stay either in the shuttle and await rescue or go to the ISS and tether over one at a time (EVA suit) and wait on that. Then they could have brought repair tiles up to fix it or left it with the station as an orbital taxi\storage shed...
137
posted on
02/02/2003 12:13:53 AM PST
by
Axenolith
(God bless our Spacefarers and Explorers...)
To: Barnacle
I have a question that MAY have been possibly answered today among the large number of posts, BUT I would first like to thank the engineers on here that know a helluva lot more about physics that I do. I've appreciated the crash-course in space travel. :)
My question is based off of previous landings that are shown on tv. On the last several landings, and on the NASA website, there is a HUD view of the shuttle coming in. It's several minutes of display that is shown live on TV sometimes. I suppose that Houston has this recorded? I would think that would help decide the issue of whether the shuttle was coming in side-ways. (which looks that way to me)
Any info will be appreciated. Matt
To: Alberta's Child
I've seen a piece stating a Cal astronomy person observed the shuttle losing pieces all the way back over CA, anyone hear stuff on this?
139
posted on
02/02/2003 12:28:07 AM PST
by
Axenolith
(God bless our Spacefarers and Explorers...)
To: r9etb
oiu are so wrong its not funny. Why isn't WFAA or the other networks touting this still image on their website if its supposed to be a dramatic image?
I'll tell you why, because it's an optical effect, not a picture of the shuttle.
140
posted on
02/02/2003 5:31:49 AM PST
by
finnman69
(Bush Cheney 2004)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-162 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson