Air Force imagery confirms Columbia wing damaged (with picture)

Space Flght Now ^ | 7 Feb 03 | CRAIG COVAULT

[Enlightiator]

Good, this post with picture deserves being in breaking news. NASA has also posted a larger photo and sensor data timeline graphics at:

http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/investigation/sensors/index.html

IMHO, this left wing leading edge damage tends to point to the obvious first "suspect" - damage to the left wing by the exernal tank foam debris. I will await further NASA analysis of course.

[Boundless]

> how in the world does anybody see "damage" here?

The lower edge of the shuttle, from the nose to the tip of the wing, should be a SMOOTH curve. Those bumps represent major damage.

Attention all viewers: this imagery may have been deliberately reduced in resolution so as not to compromise USAF asset capabilities. The Commission will doubtless have access to both the raw and enhanced images (and motion video).

[brityank]

I watched part of the newsbrief, and Ronald Dittemore made it clear that NO determination has been made of exactly what this shows.

Why a stark white skyview background? Why an extremely pixilated outline? To me, it looks fake.

[polemikos]

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2003/02.07.03.usaf.jpg

[Balata]

The initial NASA Mission Management Team (MMT) assessment of the debris impact made Jan. 18, two days after launch, noted "The strike appears to have occurred on or relatively close to the "wing glove" near the orbiter fuselage.

The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC bolt-on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage.

The second MMT summary analyzing the debris hit was made on Jan. 20 and had no mention of the leading-edge wing glove area. That report was more focused on orbiter black tiles on the vehicle's belly. The third and final summary issued on Jan. 27 discusses the black tiles again, but also specifically says "Damage to the RCC [wing leading edge] should be limited to [its] coating only and have no mission impact." Investigators in Houston are trying to match the location of the debris impact with the jagged edge shown in the Air Force imagery.

This tells me they made three assesments of the situation.

The first on Jan 18, two days after the launch, which states the strike appears to have occurred on or relative close to the "wing glove" area near the orbital fuselage.

The second, on Jan 20 which made no mention of the wing glove area.

And finally the third, on Jan 27 which also neglected to mention the wing glove area.

My question is, why did they leave the area they initially though was struck out of their subsequent two assesments?

It looks to me like they are overlooking first impressions.

Or, perhaps we just have incomplete data.

[FreedomCalls]

I disagree that the photo definately shows the left thruster firing to correct an off-nominal yaw. The plume you see trailing the left wing could be a smokey metallic plume from burn-through of the leading edge of the wing spar just under where the reinforced carbon-carbon is attached. If the RCC leading edge was cracked at take off, and the heat infiltrated under it during re-entry, we could expect to see a plume of smoky metallic debris from the burn through -- kind of like the smoke from an arc welder. That could be what is visible here. Clearly the leading edge has suffered trauma of some sort.

[mikenola]

I understand what your saying, but why no color information? This looks like 8 bit grayscale to me. Also the pixel resolution looks very low. (320x240?). Maybe when they say "hi-res" they mean the high frame rate of the video camera.

[tall_tex]

My old eyes must be failing me, someone ping McGoo, I am sure he can see it and point out the damage.

[Lokibob]

 

 

Looks like the same shuttle to me.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Maybe you should go develop a technology that can photograph objects in orbit before you critique the photo quality of an object at 207,000 feet moving at 18 times the speed of sound.

[djf]

It is probably true that they have much better images from recon satellites. But we will never see them.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I'd tell ya what it is, Mo, but I'm so embarrassed that I'm blushing...

[Hawkeye's Girl]

Well, it's obvious this picture shows that something happened to that side, but can we really infer anything else from it?

[Lady Jag]

Rotated and made symmetrical (mirrored left side) and it looks like right side fusilage is also distorted in their photo

[hole_n_one]

It's really a Rorschach inkblot, isn't it?

[wizzler]

OK, yes, I see. The reduced image in the subsequent post makes it much clearer.

[Mo1]

I'd tell ya what it is, Mo, but I'm so embarrassed that I'm blushing...

LOL.. I can't stop laughing .. I can't believe that photo

[Lokibob]

Last 10 years of my working life was in the very same business, taking pictures of high speed flying, only on an AF Range rather than NASA.

At 40 miles distance and 1200 MPH, that is a remarkable picture.

I'm guessing a 100" lens mounted on a cini-sextant with high speed video (prob 1000fps).

[Dog Gone]

Maybe you should go develop a technology that can photograph objects in orbit before you critique the photo quality of an object at 207,000 feet moving at 18 times the speed of sound.

No, maybe some people shouldn't use the term "high-resolution" when they really mean " interesting photo that lacks much detail."

[Chad Fairbanks]

I'm wondering whether I should ping the lynch mob, or let them find this thread on their own...

(last time I saw a photo like that, I was in a shrink's office... he kept showing me dirty pictures... it was quite disturbing...)