Air Force imagery confirms Columbia wing damaged

Spaceflightnow.com ^ | 02/07/03 | CRAIG COVAULT

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. I probably wrote my response slopily. I realize only the orange tank has foam. I appreciate the correction.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the response. I appologize. I hadn't heard that term before and thought you were kidding.

I have some friends in Clearlake and like the area a lot.

Looks like they're taking the California breakup reports rather serious.

[Carry_Okie]

[Carry_Okie]

The above might interest you.

[Boot Hill]

Congratulations, Carry_Okie on graphic work that is truly an investigative tour de force.

Absolutely amazing! Discounting any atmospheric effects, there is clear signs of damage to the nose, chine and leading edge of the left wing (shown on the right in the graphic). The wing damage is most interesting, because some of it shows as missing, while other areas of the leading edge shows material that shouldn't be there! No wonder it broke up! Now, we need to know why, but for sure, that damage didn't occur from foam falling away from the external fuel tank.

Regards,

Boot Hill

[Truth29]

The referened image was from the 4:30CST NASA briefing. Interesting followup is that MSNBC has reported that NASA has a one minute digital videotape from the Starfire facility which is of much higher resolution than the one released frame we have all seen. The same report states that NBC has reviewed the same higher resolution images.

Since NBC has seen the high res pictures, I wonder why they are not released to the public?

[Gracey]

In the local Clear Lake area people that work for NASA are seen all over the place. Some of them have numerous indentification and or security badges/tags connected to string or ribbons around their necks. IE: taggers

Interesting. What's the purpose? I've worked for NASA most of my career at four separate facilities, KSC, JSC, HQ and MSFC. At each we have been told that badges are NOT to be worn off site.

[isthisnickcool]

What's the purpose?

Maybe they just forget they have them on? Or are proud of them? You worked at JSC and never saw anyone at lunch that obviously worked for NASA because all the ID stuff hanging off their neck?

If you worked at JSC I bet you know where this is:

<

[Terriergal]

I guess I must be blind - but they coulda pointed out just what on the pic we were looking at. It's not like it's all that obvious for us laypeople!

[snopercod]

I wonder why they are not released to the public?

My guess is that the images are classified, since they were taken at a DoD facility.

[Lady Jag]

Nice job! I believe these show that there is really no way to determine damage from that original photo unless the entire side of the craft was damaged, in which case the whole world probably would have known. There are so many factors in the distance of it, atmosphere, angle, temperature, etc., that could contribute to the distortion of an image.

[Carry_Okie]

I believe these show that there is really no way to determine damage from that original photo unless the entire side of the craft was damaged, in which case the whole world probably would have known. There are so many factors in the distance of it, atmosphere, angle, temperature, etc., that could contribute to the distortion of an image.

Agreed, but then the next question is: What would be the cause of such intense distortion, especially at the nose of the craft?

For such an envelope to bend or obstruct light, there either has to be a debris trail (such as what appears from the tail), perhaps induced by combusting skin due to missing tiles on the nose, or a totally asymmetrical shockwave with its own boundary layer, sufficiently intense to create its own envelope against the normal shockwave off the nose. Such an envelope could IMO only be produced by damage to the Shuttle's skin or perhaps a thruster going full bore against the drag produced by the damage in the aft sections. Is there a lateral thuster up there?

Then there is the apparent cavity at the junction of the wing root and the chine, and the build-up on the leading edge of the wing. What the hell could do that at high Mach speeds except material peeling out of the wing root, folding back and burning off?

[Lady Jag]

Have you ever taken a photograph where the light is stronger on one side of the object? Sometimes that side light is so strong it washes out the subject. I'm not saying that this is the case with these photos, but the thought does contribute to consideration of the variables.

In the same case of washout, you may also have, say, illuminated dust on that side of the photo which cannot be seen in the darker side, which could account, in this discussion, for the dark streak on the lower part of the image.

[Carry_Okie]

Have you ever taken a photograph where the light is stronger on one side of the object?

I don't buy that in this case. First, it is too asymmetrical. Second, it's on the same side as the reported damage during launch, indeed the wing root is precisely where the foam struck. Third, that doesn't explain the debris trail.

Mr. Doughty, what do you think of the pictures in #283 and the explanation in #292?

[Lady Jag]

Check this out on another thread, then. Doesn't the plane in the air look asymmetrical?

[DoughtyOne]

Well I think you've touched on obvious questions that are reasonable to raise in light of the photographic evidence.

I'm not as comfortable making extrapolations about the nose or side, as I am the front wing area.  There is clearly distress in that area.  A debris trail is clear.  Wing compromise is a given.  Heat buildup in trapped air at the leading edge seems evident.

I don't see any residual debris coming off the nose or side of the shuttle.  This leads me to question the true value of the photographic evidence in that area.  I do see a somewhat faint shadow on the right of the shuttle photo, leading me to question if that isn't a hint that the side of the shuttle is minimally exposed to the camera lens.  If so, the angle might cause the right side outline to be somewhat distorted.  I will admit, the wings don't seem to verify this perception.

If that right side (of the photo) does show shuttle side, you may be seeing the outline of the tile area exagerated in the photo.  Note where the bulge out (photo right) just behind the nose cone, may possibly be an area where tiles go farther up on the orbiter.  Thus, a slight off-center view of the orbiter might make the photo look like a buldge, when what you're really seeing is more tiles.

If there are clearer versions of this photograph, they should be made public.

Let me search for some photos I saw the other day.  If I can find them I'll come back for additional comments.

[DoughtyOne]

You mentioned yaw thrusters in your comments. There is some bleeding of fuel in the front of the orbiter before reentry. I believe the yaw thrusters are drained as a safety issue, wanting to eliminate fuel in that area. Look, perhpas someone with nore knowledge in this area can explain exactly what is drained, and from which forward system. I'm only trying to relate and make sense out of what I read.

[Carry_Okie]

What about the explanation of using a thruster to hold it on creating the gas envelope that distorted the picture from the nose? Is there a thruster up there (I would think there is)? To use one is the kind of desperation maneuver one would expect with that much wing drag.

[Carry_Okie]

LOL! Engineers, the lot of us. See 298.

[Carry_Okie]

I respectfully disagree. I think NASA is going to be more open about what they find than you might expect.

They weren't open or honest about the Challenger disaster.