From NASA engineering film: Sequential pix of debris hitting Columbia's wing

NASA via CNN Online & Yahoo News ^ | 2/3/03 | Wolfstar

[Wolfstar]

Released Monday morning, a high-speed NASA engineering film shows a piece of debris falling from the large external tank on the space shuttle Columbia's liftoff and hitting the orbiter's left wing. Bear in mind that these are extreme close-ups of a high-speed event. In the top couple of photos, you see only the top of the broken-off piece. Most of it is in the shadows. Depending on which clip you see and how slowly it is run, to the uninitiated person's eye, it can look either like the debris strikes the wing hard enough to pulverize the debris, or the debris strikes a glancing blow and bounces off in the direction of the main and booster engine exhaust.

[Howlin]

I'm asking you, Todd.

Is that picture a fake or not. No more BS.

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

Of course not, we should accept the misguided comments by you and...

Now please provide even one comment that I have made related to the Columbia disaster that you disagree with.

In the abense of that I'll simply have to recognize along with others that you can't.

Naturally, you and Fred and TBLSHOW (you know, the person you liken to the family member of a mugging victim) can all thump your chests and tell each other how I couldn't. As I've pointed out numerous times, your concept of logic and reality are far apart. You can circular talk all you want, it doesn't change anything. But it does provide a great humour break.

469 posted on 02/04/2003 1:01 PM PST by CWOJackson
 

Why is it that you can't address what I have posted on the forum?  You continually mention TBLSHOW or FredMertz in each comment to me.  I did not post their comments.  I have not followed their comments.  And I must say, I am not responsible for their comments.  Are you having another senior moment?

In an earlier post I mentioned that it bothered me that Ron Dettemore dismissed the likelihood that the insullation strike on the left wing of the shuttle was a problem.  Today Dettemore stated that his team may have been too dismissive of that insullation strike on the wing.  Still you state that I am not being fair to NASA.

In an earlier post I mentioned that it bothered me that Ron Dettemore stated that the wing of the Columbia was not inspected after liftoff.  Today it is reported that satellite and Air Force aircraft took pictures of the Columbia.  Still you state that I am not being fair to NASA.

All I have asked for all along was a reasoned fair and open investigation of what happened to Columbia.  That was a problem for you, still is, even though I was right.  Dettemore agrees.  That must be a real blow to you.  Lets move on.

I have also demanded to know why after over twenty years NASA has not developed a contingency policy for rescuing shuttle crews who are stranded on a mission in near space.

I have been proven to have been right to ask two of the three questions I have asked.  The only remaining issue is the one of whether there should be a plan devised to get astronauts back alive.  To this and the prior two questions I asked, you only response is that it is not respectful to the seven dead astronauts to raise these issues.

Evidently you think it is much more respectful of these astronauts to accept their deaths an not try to prevent still further deaths should this happen again.

I am particularly impressed by your respect for those who have died, in that you learned nothing, question nothing and accept everything with the insight of a five year old child.

One thing I will say for you, you work both ends of the spectrum to the hilt.  You've got those senior moments and childlike acceptances down to a science.

Is this the circular logic you were addressing?

[justshe]

Try responding to questions I've asked you:

Using your logic that nothing is proven fraudulent until an agency debunks it (picture and NASA in this case), should President Bush have addressed the nation to debunk the following theories?

1. The Jews were responsible for bombing the WTC

2. The WH/Pentagon/military complex was responsible for bombing the WTC to take pressure off the President and the economy.

3. The WH/Pentagon/military complex was responsible for bombing the WTC to give the President the chance to scare the public and insure they would elect Republicans in the mid-term elections.

Did you have any doubt regarding the validity of the above theories until someone told you they were false?

If you answer no.....why not?

You didn't because you used your reasoning power to determine what was the truth based on evidence provided.

Your brain is not just a mass of useless tissue used to fill the hollow space above your face. USE IT or LOSE IT!

[Rebelbase]

We're on our best behavior until around Feb. 15th when the antis have their next rally.

[DoughtyOne]

There were a number of interviews yesterday afternoon with people framiliar with that insullation.  They each described the consistancy of the foam to be like that of a brick when it dried.  They were people who worked with it.  I'll take their word for it until a better source comes along.

NASA did an evaluate the damage the insullation could have done to the shuttle.  On Saturday they stated that it couldn't have done enough damage to take out the shuttle.  Today they state that they may have underestimated the damage it could have caused.

[Fred Mertz]

Changing the subject slightly, you told me the other night the Columbia crew knew of their damaged wing. I took your word for it, then I read this.

Had the Columbia crew known of damage, though, there was probably little they could have done about it, said Sally Ride, America's first woman in space and a member of the commission that investigated the Challenger disaster. The Challenger shuttle exploded during liftoff 17 years ago.

Sally Ride tells me something different here. Who am I to believe? I'd appreciate any clarification you can provide. Thanks.

Source: http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/news/020403_nw_theory.html

[TLBSHOW]

We have been proved right about this but don't expect an apology from the ones that had no clue and tried to stop the truth.

God always brings it out in the end for all to see.

[TLBSHOW]

ps
I haven't had food for days did a fast till this was done. Time to eat!

Be back.....

[Pres Raygun]

The Enterprise, is not space worthy, because it was used for stress and vibration testing, which was so rigorous, that the airframe was damaged beyond repair.

[Charles Martel]

The Enterprise, is not space worthy, because it was used for stress and vibration testing, which was so rigorous, that the airframe was damaged beyond repair.

It is also the oldest of the lot. I suppose that it could be rebuilt, but it would take longer and be more expensive than just building a new orbiter. It does not seem terribly smart to start building another shuttle "from scratch" when the design can obviously be improved. I forget... was Enterprise ever "flown" to a landing after being carried aloft, or did it only ride on the Shuttle Transport aircraft?

[the_doc]

The people who described the insulation as a brick were just telling us that it's not soft and fluffy like the stuff in your attic. It's firm.

As a former process engineer, I am pretty familiar with industrial insulation. I know exactly what they are talking about. The idea of "brick" is the idea of a formed solid. Partially oxidized sawdust, for example, can be sintered to form a brick. (n fact, we call it a briquette.)

On the other hand, the insulation is not heavy like a brick, not heavy like masonry.

Another idea of a brick, perhaps, is that of shatterability. Hit a charcoal briquette with a hammer and you will see what I mean. Hit a mason's brick with a sledgehammer and it will shatter, too.

The video shows that the insulation largely disintegrated upon hitting the wing.

In any case, the brick idea has mislead you. The truth is, the insulation was pretty lightweight material which disintegrated upon colliding with the wing. That being the case, there was no way for the engineers to know whether it damaged the tiles--or even whether it probably damaged the tiles in a fatally serious way.

We would need to do laboratory tests involving insulation colliding with the wing sections. I'm sure they have tested a lot of collision scenarios, but I'll bet they never did that test.

[El Gato]

The Enterprise, is not space worthy, because it was used for stress and vibration testing, which was so rigorous, that the airframe was damaged beyond repair.

My understanding was that it was never intended to be spaceworthy and all the folks who petitioned and harranged NASA to name the first shuttle "Enterprise" were sorely disappointed, not to mention PO'd. I fell into the latter category myself.

[El Gato]

I forget... was Enterprise ever "flown" to a landing after being carried aloft, or did it only ride on the Shuttle Transport aircraft?

They flew it to a landing, several times, IIRC... let's see what we can find...

OV-101 from NASA says that there were 5 captive flights with Enterprise unmanned and inert, 3 manned captive flights, and 5 free flight "drops". The last two of them were flown without the "tail cone" and the last one landed on the concrete runway rather than the dry lake.

[El Gato]

Here's pic of Enterprise flying free of the 747 on it's first free flight, with the NASA caption below:

NASA Photo ID: S77-27945 File Name: 10076590.jpg Film Type: 35mm Date Taken: 08/12/77 Title: Orbiter "Enterprise" soars above the NASA 747 carrier Description: The Shuttle Orbiter 101 "Enterprise" soars above the NASA 747 carrier aircraft after separating during the first free flight of the Shuttle Apporach and Landing Tests (ALTs) conducted on August 12, 1977 at Dryden Flight Research Center in Southern California. Astronauts Fred W. Haise Jr., and C. Gordon Fullerton were the crew of the "Enterprise." The ALT free flights are designed to verify Orbiter subsonic airworthiness, integrated systems operations and pilot-guided approach and landing capability and satisfying prerequisites to automatic flight control and navigation mode.

[DugwayDuke]

You miss the point. This "photo" was transmitted live and in the clear to earth.

[DugwayDuke]

How do you cover up something that was transmitted over an open channel and shown on TV? No sane person would even attempt such a thing.

[Interesting Times]

That hatch has a noticable dent in it on the video, in addition to the possible crack. I wonder if there's any possibility the hatch might not have sealed correctly.

[Revel]

I would have thought that at the very least they would have suits on board and the capability to send someone outside for a look. It just seems crazy to me if they did not. If they had taken a look on there first day in orbit then we could have put together some way of saving them. In this day and age there should have automatically been a rescue vehicle ready to go on a moments notice. Oh well...I hope they learn from this.