New Video Over California May Show Columbia Shuttle Debris

KRON San Francisco ^ | February 6, 2003

[Shermy]

FAIRFIELD (KRON) -- New video that KRON 4 has obtained from a photographer in Fairfield shows possible debris breaking off of the shuttle Columbia as it flew over California just minutes before losing contact with NASA.

The focus of this investigation is a very faint glitter on this tape. It looks as if a spec or two falls off the back of the shuttle as it was traveling at about 17,000 miles an hour overhead.

If you watch closely, you can see a few little dim specs. Is it anything? It's a good question.

We enhanced the video at the moment that came off, and can you see that it's just that little spec that we're interested in right now, just that little bit of debris from the back of the shuttle.

We really have no idea what it is. We have no doubt, though, that NASA will be interested in looking at it.

When the videotape was shot from Fairfield, Lionel Machado said the shuttle at that time appeared perfectly normal.

"It was a beautiful day, I could see it very well and we could see the trail behind it above our house," says Machado, who shot the video. "Then as it got maybe directly North, it went off that direction and then disappeared in the North/Northeast."

KRON 4 Science Editor Brian Hackney also talked with a local expert about what the possible debris was.

"It's hard to tell what it is, but I don't believe it's an artifact of the camera," says Buddy Nelson, a Space and Science Expert in Fremont who studied the video this afternoon. "I think we are seeing something coming off the back of the orbiter, possibly a piece of the structure itself or potentially a natural occurrence of plasma breaking up behind the shuttle."

"You don't think it's ice?"

"No, I don't. That would dissipate in the vacuum of space."

"What are the chances that whatever that thing is survived to the ground, to become debris?"

"Reasonably small," says Nelson. "We're talking 47 miles up. It's going very fast. If it's small, it will continue to burn. Because it's along the trajectory path, it's going to burn up."

"This is something NASA will be interested in?"

"Absolutely. They'll look at the timing of these two occurrences. They'll look at the telemetry. They will see if there's any correlation between the movement on the flight surfaces and these two events."

"It's also curious at the moment that that was taken, about 9 or 8 minutes before the hour of 6:00 that morning was the very moment the things began to go wrong on the shuttle."

KRON 4 is working on this developing story and will have more details tonight starting on KRON 4 News at 4pm.

[tubebender]

Dittemore said their first indication of something unusual was at 8:52 EST. I beileive that is as it crosses the Cal coast. That means things were happening before that to start raising the temps.

A few years ago I spent the night the night in Garberville Ca so I could witness the shuttle crossing over Marin County. I did not have a clue what to expect but when it appeared I was so stunned at the sight that I neither lifted my binoculars nor my camera. To me it appeared to be sunlite shinning on a jumbo jet but of course it wasn't. I wish I had wittnessed this one for comparison

[HighWheeler]

"As the search for answers continues, NASA is shifting away from its original theory that a piece of foam that hit Columbia's wing during lift off caused the catastrophe.

Among the new theories - the accidental trigger of explosive devices on board...

What explosive devices would have been armed and triggered during this phase of reentry? If they did happen, the detonations might be audible on board, or indicated back to the cockpit or to Houston.

[discostu]

Coming from you that's a high compliment. Do me a favor never read or reply to any of my posts.

[dark_lord]

Among the new theories - the accidental trigger of explosive devices on board or perhaps a flaw in a wing.

Hmmm....explosive devices? Accidentally triggered? Perhaps a shuttle expert can tell us WTF "explosive devices" it would be carrying.

[HighWheeler]

There are pyros on board, but they are not armed until the craft is nearly landing.

Here they are:

http://ltp.arc.nasa.gov/space/ask/landing/Landing_gear_failure.txt

QUESTION:
Just after Pre-flare the landing gear is armed and deployed at roughly 300 feet. Is it possible for the gear to NOT deploy? With unpowered flight, if it didn't come out, the astronauts would be in a little trouble.

ANSWER from Carolyn Mariano on July 7, 1998: Yes, it is possible for the gear to NOT deploy. However, the orbiter design incorporates redundant and secondary systems to reduce the chances of a belly landing. The landing gear is typically deployed using two switches(Arm and Down), which you may have heard used during Shuttle transmissions. The landing gear is deployed using the Shuttle hydraulic system 1. If the landing gear does not deploy as expected, there are redundant circuitry, pyrotechnics, and hydraulic systems that can be performed to deploy the landing gear. The orbiter landing gear is basically held in the retracted position with an uplock hook on each of the 3 struts. When the crew commands the landing gear to deploy, the orbiter hydraulics system 1 will rotate the uplock hooks, which will release the struts, and the gear will fully extend to the down and locked position, by free falling with hydraulic dampening. If the hydraulic system fails to release the landing gear in one second after it is commanded, then a backup pyrotechnic uplock release actuator system will deploy the landing gear. The pyrotechnic(pyros) actuator is fired by dual(redundant) pyrotechnic controllers, although only one controller is needed to activate the pyros. The pyros are activated and ready for firing in 40 milliseconds. The pyros fire after receiving 3 different indications. If at any time during the pyro activation, it senses that the landing gear is deploying, then the pyros deactivate. This assures that the pyros are will not fire and damage other hardware.

If something causes the Hydraulic System 1 and the pyrotechnics to fail, then Hydraulic System 2 can be used to actuate the Nose Landing Uplock actuator and deploy the nose landing gear.

An additional bit of information:

High air loads may occur during approach at high angles of attack on the outside of the nose landing gear door area. The nose landing gear may need additional force applied to assist the lighter weight gear to deploy. The Nose Landing Gear(NLG) Deploy booster pyro actuator will aid in NLG deploying by applying a force to the strut. The booster actuator will fire approximately 2 seconds after gear extension is requested. Remember, that if the hydraulic actuator fails to release the uplock hook to deploy the nose landing gear, the backup pyro actuate will release the hook 1 second after gear deployment is requested, then one second later the pyro applying an additional force to the strut will occur.

A bit of trivia: The landing gear deployment can not be activated until the Shuttle speed is less than 300 knots.

[HighWheeler]

here you go, post just above.

[dark_lord]

So then, theoretically, if the software had been tampered with then it would be able to issue commands to fire the pyrotechnics in the wings. It would be interesting to see what the software security procedures are. On a "fly by wire" craft like the shuttle I would presume they are quite high, but it might be interesting to see if NASA could create an altered verision of the software that would fire the pyros inappropriately.

If they could do it (and I suspect they could, since it appears it is all software driven), then they need to verify that this did not occur. Thus they need to look at the software auditing procedures.

I would doubt this would be the cause, because such a sabotage approach would also require altering the software that reports that such software commands had been given, and altering the software controlling or recording certain sensors. At which point you are pretty much talking fantasy, I suspect. But I have no idea what NASA's software control procedures are. They have laid off, what, 1/3 or their workforce during the Clinton years so (put on the tin hat) just maybe they let someone work unsupervised with both the knowledge and the authority to do something nasty.

[Fred Mertz]

Thanks for the link. I checked out the article, I'll check out the video tomorrow.

[null and void]

Seems to me there are a lot of people obsessed with proving the shuttle started falling apart over CA. Why?

Because the first pieces to fall off show where the chain of events leading to the crash started.

It's the equivalent of an arson investigator wanting to know where a fire started, and not being interested in how big the fire ended up being.

[null and void]

Green, one eyed.

one horned, flying...

[null and void]

Seems like some people in CA are looking for a grim peg to hang their hat off of (CA: Where the Columbia first started disintigrating).

It's either that or GrayDavis. *sigh*

Of course this could all just be because I'm in a foul mood lately.

Switch to the fish, more omgega 3 fatty acids...

[eno_]

I would not want to recommend the approach of "security by obscurity" but shuttle software has such a strange development environment that inserting such an exploit would be very difficult.

For one thing, if you were planning such an op, there would be no way to get the source code in advance in order to plan what you would do even if you infiltrated someone into the software development team.

[gungadin]

Interesting about the backup pyrotechnic activations re the undercarriage. Now if the left wing was compromised somewhere because of what we know re the ascent stage, and with excessive heat building rapidly in the doorwheel as we understand during re-entry, and the presence of pyrotechnics in the immediate area..........

[Joe Hadenuf]

Coming from you that's a high compliment. Do me a favor never read or reply to any of my posts.

LOL! If you continue to make such stupid, fallacious, untruthful statements like #3 and #12 on a public forum, your going to get a response.

[Mo1]

Did I hear correctly from this News video .. the NASA guy stating that this video was the first video seen to be shedding debris west of Fort Worth?

Wasn't there a video from AZ showing debris falling?

[quietolong]

backup pyrotechnic


Hmmm
Brings up another possibility
The one person in CA reported taken photos with what they thought was “ lighting “
I don’t think it would have been lighting. But it is possible that some type of electrical discharge occurred ?
A charge on the Shuttle and it discharges when it hits the air ??
The surge thought the shuttle fires the pyro
Ya I know it’s far out there but S**t happens. Remember Gus Grissum and Mercury Redstone Liberty Bell 7

[MrConfettiMan]

Thanks again, Fred.

[discostu]

Problem is of the half dozen people that replied to my posts YOU are the only one that didn't get it. Sounds to me like the idiot is you. There's nothing fallacious about any of my statements, since the statements were about MY feelings it's pretty egotistical of you to claim to know what I'm thinking. I think it's odd that every time one CA video gets keiboshed another headline grabbing CA video appears. If you don't think it's wierd fine, but I do.

Now, really, go bother somebody who's here for flame wars, that's all you've ever been interested in on FR and I'm not. I'm interested in exchanging thoughts and ideas with other intelligent people, an activity that you are neither capable of or seemingly interested in. Bye.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Seems to me there are a lot of people obsessed with proving the shuttle started falling apart over CA. Why? Is there some sort of federal grant I haven't heard of that gives the state where a shuttle disaster started a bunch of money? Some parts fell in my home state of AZ, does that make us more worthy?

But that doesn't seem to me what people are looking for. It's nothing but the ubiquitous "parts" "seen" in a video. I understand the importance of finding and identifying the first chunk, and I'm sure the search will go into the Pacific ocean just in case. I just think it's weird that everytime one CA video get the keibosh another pops up. Seems like some people in CA are looking for a grim peg to hang their hat off of (CA: Where the Columbia first started disintigrating).

I think it's odd that every time one CA video gets keiboshed another headline grabbing CA video appears. If you don't think it's wierd fine, but I do.

Now, really, go bother somebody who's here for flame wars, that's all you've ever been interested in on FR and I'm not. I'm interested in exchanging thoughts and ideas with other intelligent people, an activity that you are neither capable of or seemingly interested in. Bye.

Your interested in exchanging thoughts and ideas with other intelligent people?

Then why didn't you answer my questions early on? Here, I will post them again for all the lurkers and readers to see.

Should we just ignore this video and other possible evidence? Should we just stick our heads in the sand? Do you think the camera man should have just thrown this video in his closet and forgot about it?

It seems clear to me that you have something against those in Cal that actually observed something and are offering possible evidence?

Why would anyone speak out against this? I find this interesting, given that fact that NASA has come out and asked for help of anyone that observed or found anything to please come forward.

Again, if you really want something to complain about, try complaining about the Texans that actually were arrested for collecting and keeping Shuttle wreckage.

The Californians that were offering evidence or their observations are extremely important to this investigation, even the director of NASA stated this.

You seem to be suggesting that those in California that observed something, or have possible video/photographic evidence should just keep it to themselves.

[discostu]

I didn't answer your question because:
A - it has nothing to do with what I said
B - it's deliberately inflamatory
and
C - what little "point" your questions have I addressed in response to earlier more politley phrased questions posed by smarter more interesting people