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.
Which just happens to look exactly like a Shuttle, right down to the OMS pods. Riiiighht.
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?
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!
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.
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.
The reason why not: 207,00 feet.
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.
The hostile environment is as much thermal as aerodynamic at that point.
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.
I'm referring, of course, to anyone who might have hypothetically been filming such a descent, not you. LOL.
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
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.