SENECA@argo.rhein-neckar.de
July 30th 06, 11:29 AM
> > >It's fairly doubtful that it would have been visible, considering that
> > >the resolution of those photos appears to be in the 2 ft range (the RCS
> > >nozzles are barely single pixels) while the suspected hole was in the
> > >6-10 inch range.
> > >
> > >
> > I was really surprised by the level of detail that is visible on them
> > though; you can see the Columbia's name on the wing top, for instance,
> > though it's not legible. One thing that could change the equation is
> > that the hole would appear darker than the medium dark gray RCC due to
> > shadows;
>
> That all assumes that you're purposely pointing the leading edge of the
> wing towards AMOS (or a spy satellite) to try to get the best quality
> images of that area, as opposed to trying to view the bottom of the
> wing where tiles could have been lost.
Like I cited here several times: According the launch film analysis the
suspected area of impact was the RCC leading edge underside. So I would
assume you point the impact area to the camera...
> But in any case the area behind the RCC is the dull green zinc primer
> (you can see it in some of the phtotos of the interior of the leading
> edge in photos in the CAIB report) and about the same shade in gray as
> the RCC. Maybe you could tweak the sun angle to increase the shadows
> and contrasts, but only if you knew - in advance - what you were
> looking for (hole, crack, location of the damage and at what angle) to
> try to improve those conditions.
>
> > and I still think that the infrared might show an effect
> > despite its lower resolution due to differential heating at the damage
> > site.
>
> Heating's not an issue. The infrared use by AMOS was passive infrared,
> not illuminating it or a thermal scan.
Like Pat I too had the impression the "infrared" image was thermal.
Do you have some source that it was not?
>
> Rob Stevens
## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##
> > >the resolution of those photos appears to be in the 2 ft range (the RCS
> > >nozzles are barely single pixels) while the suspected hole was in the
> > >6-10 inch range.
> > >
> > >
> > I was really surprised by the level of detail that is visible on them
> > though; you can see the Columbia's name on the wing top, for instance,
> > though it's not legible. One thing that could change the equation is
> > that the hole would appear darker than the medium dark gray RCC due to
> > shadows;
>
> That all assumes that you're purposely pointing the leading edge of the
> wing towards AMOS (or a spy satellite) to try to get the best quality
> images of that area, as opposed to trying to view the bottom of the
> wing where tiles could have been lost.
Like I cited here several times: According the launch film analysis the
suspected area of impact was the RCC leading edge underside. So I would
assume you point the impact area to the camera...
> But in any case the area behind the RCC is the dull green zinc primer
> (you can see it in some of the phtotos of the interior of the leading
> edge in photos in the CAIB report) and about the same shade in gray as
> the RCC. Maybe you could tweak the sun angle to increase the shadows
> and contrasts, but only if you knew - in advance - what you were
> looking for (hole, crack, location of the damage and at what angle) to
> try to improve those conditions.
>
> > and I still think that the infrared might show an effect
> > despite its lower resolution due to differential heating at the damage
> > site.
>
> Heating's not an issue. The infrared use by AMOS was passive infrared,
> not illuminating it or a thermal scan.
Like Pat I too had the impression the "infrared" image was thermal.
Do you have some source that it was not?
>
> Rob Stevens
## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##