CAIB releases detailed "working scenario"

[Jorge R. Frank]

Some interesting gems in this document, such as this one on p. 63:

<quote>
While Columbia was on-orbit, there was no indication of damage from either
the ascent foam impact or a micrometeoroid/orbital debris (MMOD)
hypervelocity debris impact based on orbiter telemetry, crew downlinked
video and still photography, or crew reports. Multiple comprehensive
postflight reviews of the same data indicated that there was nothing
unusual with any of Columbia.s systems or structure.
</quote>

Hmm, guess Tom Wheeler never contacted the CAIB like people urged him to
do, huh?

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Bruce Palmer]

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
> Some interesting gems in this document, such as this one on p. 63:
>
> <quote>
> While Columbia was on-orbit, there was no indication of damage from either
> the ascent foam impact or a micrometeoroid/orbital debris (MMOD)
> hypervelocity debris impact based on orbiter telemetry, crew downlinked
> video and still photography, or crew reports. Multiple comprehensive
> postflight reviews of the same data indicated that there was nothing
> unusual with any of Columbia.s systems or structure.
> </quote>
>
> Hmm, guess Tom Wheeler never contacted the CAIB like people urged him to
> do, huh?
>

I used Tom's methods with some other pictures and made an amazing
discovery myself. In response to another poster's contention that it is
dangerous to allow a returning shuttle to fly over populated areas, I
did a little research.

I found a photo taken from orbit of the Dallas-Fort Worth area of
northern Texas. I enlarged it in Photoshop and enhanced the contrast.
Then I enlarged it some more. You know what? I couldn't see any people
there at all! So I would say that yes, it is safe to bring in a shuttle
that may be damaged over big cities.

Oh, sure, now I suppose you're going to tell me that Tom's methods
weren't valid...

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

[OM]

On 11 Jul 2003 23:25:59 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank" >
wrote:

>Hmm, guess Tom Wheeler never contacted the CAIB like people urged him to
>do, huh?

....Nope. Sure didn't. Wonder why?


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Mike Dennis]

Looking through the report, it's interesting to note all the contributions
that can be traced back to SSS. In some small way, maybe we've all helped
make a space a safer place. Nice work people!


"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message
...
> Some interesting gems in this document, such as this one on p. 63:
>
> <quote>
> While Columbia was on-orbit, there was no indication of damage from either
> the ascent foam impact or a micrometeoroid/orbital debris (MMOD)
> hypervelocity debris impact based on orbiter telemetry, crew downlinked
> video and still photography, or crew reports. Multiple comprehensive
> postflight reviews of the same data indicated that there was nothing
> unusual with any of Columbia.s systems or structure.
> </quote>
>
> Hmm, guess Tom Wheeler never contacted the CAIB like people urged him to
> do, huh?
>
> --
> JRF
>
> Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
> check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
> think one step ahead of IBM.

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Mike Dennis" > wrote in
:

> Looking through the report, it's interesting to note all the
> contributions that can be traced back to SSS. In some small way,
> maybe we've all helped make a space a safer place. Nice work people!

Well, to be fair, most of what we've discussed has also been discussed at
the CAIB's press briefings, on which this "working scenario" document was
based. So it's probably more a matter of us paying attention to the CAIB
than vice-versa.

That said, while I know of no CAIB board members who read sci.space.*,
there are at least two members of the CAIB advisory panel who used to post
here, and can be presumed to lurk here. So it is possible, though unlikely,
that our discussions have had some indirect influence on the board.

And no, I'm not going to identify the two. You'll just have to guess. :-)
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Terrence Daniels]

"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message
...
> That said, while I know of no CAIB board members who read sci.space.*,
> there are at least two members of the CAIB advisory panel who used to post
> here, and can be presumed to lurk here. So it is possible, though
unlikely,
> that our discussions have had some indirect influence on the board.

No kidding?

I sent them a letter a couple of weeks ago with a suggestion for debris
recovery efforts. If I'd have known that, I might have saved myself 37
cents. :)