Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Major Systems Failure' Indicated
CNSNews.com ^ | 2-01-03

Posted on 02/01/2003 5:50:13 PM PST by hope

'Major Systems Failure' Indicated">


alt

'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.

 



TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-162 next last
To: _Jim
Just *prior* to the big break-up, there were several larger 'somethings' that came off the shuttle and dropped back (slowed down) markedly from the shutle ... this is EASILY viewable on the video taken by WFAA CH 8 in Dallas.

I have been wondering if the two fairly substantial pieces of debris with their own contrails, following somewhat behind the main body of the shuttle -- as is clearly visible in the early portions of several of the videos -- might possibly be the two wings? Their location behind and on either side of the shuttle would seem to be just where you would would expect detached wings to be.

61 posted on 02/01/2003 8:09:04 PM PST by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fuente
If you go through the sequence of events and read some of the eyewitness accounts from other Freepers in the western U.S., it would seem that the catastrophic failure occurred long before the thing even got to Texas. Some people reported seeing "unusual" characteristics in the re-entry as far away as California.
62 posted on 02/01/2003 8:09:04 PM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
"In fact, he said they can't even inspect them while they're up there, which is why NASA had no information about whether any tiles had been damaged by the debris which hit the wing on take-off."

This doesn't make sense. When the astronauts go outside for spacewalks, couldn't they inspect the tiles?

63 posted on 02/01/2003 8:09:40 PM PST by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; Justa
I saw the same explanation. What appears to be the shape of the SS with the rear facing the camera is in fact a lens flare.
64 posted on 02/01/2003 8:10:37 PM PST by finnman69 (Bush Cheney 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: finnman69; Justa; fuente
Check out this thread, especially Post #126.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/834013/posts?q=1&&page=1#1
65 posted on 02/01/2003 8:13:26 PM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Justa
These tiles can be repaired in space.

I don't think the above statement is correct (from the original article).

The shuttle is facing south, with it's left side being the leading edge along it's flight path.

There were a few frames where the camera tried to zoom in close and there appeared to be forms suggestive of a shuttle but traveling transverse to the flight path, i.e., left side reentering forward. Then the camera zoomed back creating a smaller image. My first thought was that the auto-focus lost the image causing it to "bloom" large, so the photographer backed off to recover focus. The problem was that the image was not right for an out of focus image, it should have been circular but it included some elements of the wedge planform. I discounted what I saw because it meant that the Shuttle would have to have been going sideways! There did appear to be some shots where features of orbiter were discernible and I'm hoping somewhere we can find the breakup sequence.

This might have explained the left side instrumentation going bad first, except there was the last communication responding to Mission Control following their advisory on the left wheel pressure/temperture and the crew did not comment on their vehicle attitude.

66 posted on 02/01/2003 8:15:37 PM PST by NJJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Very true. Most of this is just wild speculation on our ends. I have faith in the team to get to the bottom of this whole incident. I know some of the investigators (the polymer guys) from the Challenger disaster. Top notch! The background info was truely remarkable. Shoulda never happened. I pray this was is different.

Cheers!
67 posted on 02/01/2003 8:17:13 PM PST by fuente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Justa
Since I had a chance to watch this particular video clip LIVE a number of times, including on *my* .25dp Sony monitor with VooDoo 3500 (which includes a high quality TV tuner) video card -

- I'm going to have to go on record as saying that I saw *no* such features on *any* of the video clips that have been played on any of the Dallas stations today ... and boy, we've seen a number of them!

Using direct-broadcast TV signals here I might add - no sappy cable system to 'adulterate' the signal between me and the RF signals emanating from "Cedar Hill" (where the majority of the commercial broadcasters have their transmitters here in Del Norte Tejas).

68 posted on 02/01/2003 8:17:34 PM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; _Jim
"The image you are talking about is clearest just as the second T in the word SHUTTLE appears, and before the L appears. Am I correct?"

Wow, cool, I never thought of linking the scrolling text! This makes it easy! I WILL BE VINDICATED:

Display this text: "TURNS TO WHITE HOUSE FROM CAMP DAVID TO MONITOR SPACE SHUT"

Shuttle w/hole, broken off tail w/rudder markings visible perpendicular to camera. That's it!

69 posted on 02/01/2003 8:18:48 PM PST by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Stefan Stackhouse
- might possibly be the two wings?

Could be ... or the shuttle's cargo bay doors ...

70 posted on 02/01/2003 8:19:58 PM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: The Westerner
No, Dittemore explained in detail why they couldn't. They aren't able to go very far on their "walks" -- only to the immediate vicinity of the payload bay.
71 posted on 02/01/2003 8:21:23 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ironman
Yes, that's probably more likely.
72 posted on 02/01/2003 8:25:24 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: fuente
My first reaction was that I was looking at a clip of the shuttle flying sideways across the sky, but after going through those posts on the thread I listed above and realizing how far away 200,000 feet is, I'm convinced this is just a distortion in the video clip.

Cheers -- Alberta's Child

73 posted on 02/01/2003 8:25:39 PM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: fuente
Well normally I would agree with you.

Well, think about muffaletaman's response, too, then. Or think about this...what would you expect to see when zooming in on a fireball at least 40 miles away? If you kept it in focus, you'd expect to see the trailing plume in greater detail, just like the rest of the scene. Wouldn't you?

Is that what you see here?

74 posted on 02/01/2003 8:25:50 PM PST by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Justa
I know what that frame looks like, but it isn't what you think it is. Notice how the main image is darker on the bottom and has a very bright "cap" on it.

Now look at the "tail" image you see intermittently throughout the clip (which makes it look like it's rotating) -- can you see how this "tail" appears to have the same shape as the "cap" on the main image? I think the "tail" is a halo-like reflection of the main image.

75 posted on 02/01/2003 8:29:17 PM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
You could just as easily see the face of the devil as the tail or three engine bells.

This just in. The face of the devil was seen during breakup...

76 posted on 02/01/2003 8:31:37 PM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
During the press conference I though I heard one of guys say they had asked the crew to take pictures of something outside the craft and they were going to review them later. I was distracted and might not have that exact If they did take pics couldn't they send them back from orbit ?
77 posted on 02/01/2003 8:42:05 PM PST by tubebender (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Very true, and the facts about clarity and such can play havoc with perceptions. The shuttle does bank heavily to both sides upon reentry. I don't think it's doing that but we really can't tell, or at least I can't. I also think one of the reasons much of this looks distorted is that we're not really seeing the actual shuttle but the bright ionic plasma layer. There's about a dozen or so things that could give distortion to the pics.
78 posted on 02/01/2003 8:45:02 PM PST by fuente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: muffaletaman
I'm not disputing anything that you are saying, but as another engineer who has done failure analysis, I wonder what kind of failure analysis you have done. I watched some of the afternoon press conference, but I have avoided much of the coverage today specifically to keep myself from trying to analyze ahead of the facts. Do you have any experience with airplanes and their failures?

WFTR
Bill

79 posted on 02/01/2003 8:46:09 PM PST by WFTR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Try adjusting a little to the left or right. The tail is clearly visible to me. The top is on the left, rudder and markings on top, it's 'forward' being down. Imo this is no reflection or artifact. It is also visible as a seperate object when zoomed out towards the end of the clip.
80 posted on 02/01/2003 8:48:35 PM PST by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson