Does everyone know of this link?

This may be a dumb post if so I apologize. It was mentioned on the news last night
and I wasn't aware it existed just in case others were not I thought I would post it.
Lots of great information there. I know they maintain copies of written books on shuttles.

http://www.loc.gov/

Paul Maxson

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:16:44 -0700, "Paul Maxson"
wrote:

This may be a dumb post if so I apologize. It was mentioned on the news last night
and I wasn't aware it existed just in case others were not I thought I would post it.
Lots of great information there. I know they maintain copies of written books on shuttles.

http://www.loc.gov/

Paul Maxson

I'm still trying to imagine 530 miles of bookshelves. Unfortunately,
it's a long way from California.

Do you know if it's just a bibliography of books about the shuttle
that's available online or do they have the text of any of the actual
books online ?

-- David

Do you know if it's just a bibliography of books about the shuttle
that's available online or do they have the text of any of the actual
books online ?

They have enough on their plate to make their catalog available
electronically.

AFAIK, it used to be the case that you could obtain copyright to a book
only by sending two copies to the Library of Congress.

Jan

In article , Paul Maxson wrote:
This may be a dumb post if so I apologize. It was mentioned on the news last night
and I wasn't aware it existed just in case others were not I thought I would post it.
Lots of great information there. I know they maintain copies of written books on shuttles.

http://www.loc.gov/

Paul Maxson

I bumped into that about a week ago, which was the first I knew of it.
I was (believe it or not) looking for TV commercials, and saw a link
to a bunch of Coke ads which Coca-Cola had donated to the library. It
beats watching the shows, anyway.

I was kind of surprised I hadn't found the site earlier. Still haven't
looked around much, though.

Steve

Hi everybody,

I know this has probably already been talked about to death in here, but
I've been doing a bit of research on this video and came to a few
conclusions. Some people asked me questions about my conclusions, so let me
post them he


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

posted by TIM
The funny thing is I have asked several people here at work with camcorders
if they think it would resolve an object at 200,000 feet, they all say no
way, in fact, they dont think their cameras would resolve an airliner at
25,000 feet

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Tim, you can resolve features from an airliner at 25,000 feet with the naked
eye. While you can't see exact details, you can make out, given the correct
lighting conditions, major portions such as the fuselage (sp???) and wings.
If you have a stead set of hands and a good pair of binoculars, more can be
resolved. You just have to know what you're looking for when looking at the
object.

On Gordo Coopers Mercury flight, he radioed back that he could make out
objects like the steam from a locomotive, the wake of ships, and follow it
right up to the ship itself! The doctors at the time thought it could not be
true, since they reasoned that the human eye could not possibly resolve
objects like that from 200 miles above. Yet during a Gemini mission, Coopers
claims of seeing these objects was confirmed. If you know precicely what to
look for, then you can make out certain features. Even though some see it as
nothing more than a "blob", some see it as what it really is.

You can indeed resolve images far away given the right conditions. Sun at
your back, with a clear blue sky. This video looks as though these
conditions existed. Since it was early morning in Texas, the sun would have
been low, behind the photographer.

I made a comparason video showing three things. What a normal shuttle
re-entry on the right would have looked like on the video, the "blob" on the
left, and a cutout of the shuttle in what seems to be the attitude based on
what I saw on the "blob". The shape is unmistakable:

http://www.moonport.org/videos/compair.avi

If the orbiter came in correctly, even if there was all sorts of distortion,
it would have taken on a very diffrent shape.

quote by MDancer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Thus, the shape we see in the video is NOT the space shuttle Columbia, but
it is instead an anomaly created by the camera being out of focus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

It is the Columbia. If you watched the video, you will see when the camera
zooms out, the "artifact" turns into a "point" of light that quickly becomes
a streak with pronounced contrails when actual structure failure took place.
It is not an artifact of a blur, camera malfunction, lens glare, etc. It is
the shuttle. Even if there is lens glare, blurriness, etc in the image, the
object we see is unmistakable. If you look at the earlier comparason photo
I made, then the shape would have been very diffrent, even if there was
glare, blurriness, etc. Again, it's not the calarity of the image, but the
shape it took on.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

posted by Robertson
What on the rear end of the orbiter is so reflective? If the engines (or the
nacelle if the bells are missing) are overexposed why isn't the underside?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Probably because the "tail" was facing the sun and the underside was not. My
guess is the camera has some sort of auto light level adjustments and maybe
image stabilisation circuirty (which could explain the image suddenly
becoming stable when zoomed out to max). Because the image was 50-60 miles
away (if not more) then the image will distort. It's not the claraity of the
image, but it's the distinct shape that it takes.

Probably the biggest pre-judgment is the quality of camera used to make this
video. Modern high end cameras do have a very good resolution raiting. Even
though the shuttle was 30 miles high, with a good quality camera, zoom lens,
properly set up and the right lighting condition, and a little bit of luck,
it is very possible that the video did indeed show for a few frames a
shuttle that was in grave trouble.

The video is he

http://www.moonport.org/videos/shuttlebreakup.avi


I'll post more when I learn more. If anyone on here knows the equiptment
this guy used, let me know. Thanks!


Jim Williams
http://www.moonport.org

"James S Williams" wrote in message . ..
Hi everybody,

I know this has probably already been talked about to death in here, but
I've been doing a bit of research on this video and came to a few
conclusions. Some people asked me questions about my conclusions, so let me
post them he

It's so obviously a result of overzoom it's not even worth discussing
anymore. The shuttle was 200,000 feet up at that point (give or take)
and the aparent size of the shuttle in the zoom in (which purports to
show it travelling sideways at mach 20+ or whatever) is pretty huge.

No consumer grade camcorder is going to make a shuttle wingtip to
wingtip distance of 900 inches (at 200,000 feet away) resolve to what,
a half an inch in this video?

It's nothing more than an illusion.

Bob

In article ,
(Bob Jones) wrote:

"James S Williams" wrote in message
. ..
Hi everybody,

I know this has probably already been talked about to death in here, but
I've been doing a bit of research on this video and came to a few
conclusions. Some people asked me questions about my conclusions, so let me
post them he

It's so obviously a result of overzoom it's not even worth discussing
anymore. The shuttle was 200,000 feet up at that point (give or take)
and the aparent size of the shuttle in the zoom in (which purports to
show it travelling sideways at mach 20+ or whatever) is pretty huge.

No consumer grade camcorder is going to make a shuttle wingtip to
wingtip distance of 900 inches (at 200,000 feet away) resolve to what,
a half an inch in this video?

It's nothing more than an illusion.

Bob

This has pretty conclusively shown to be the result of lens flare
causing the iris in the camcorder to become visible. I think someone
calculated the slant range as something on the order of a few dozen
miles, taking into account lateral distance and elevation from the
camera. I challenged one poster to go outside on a sunny day and focus
his camcorder on an DC-9/MD-80 airliner passing overhead at 30,000 feet
and see the best detail he could resolve. Of course, my challenge would
have been a much easier case - 7 to 8 times lower altitude, smaller
lateral distance, etc. And even so (of course!) we never heard from
that particular poster again. What a surprise.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
This has pretty conclusively shown to be the result of lens flare
causing the iris in the camcorder to become visible. I think someone
calculated the slant range as something on the order of a few dozen
miles, taking into account lateral distance and elevation from the
camera. I challenged one poster to go outside on a sunny day and focus
his camcorder on an DC-9/MD-80 airliner passing overhead at 30,000 feet
and see the best detail he could resolve. Of course, my challenge would
have been a much easier case - 7 to 8 times lower altitude, smaller
lateral distance, etc. And even so (of course!) we never heard from
that particular poster again. What a surprise.

I guess I missed the discussion, but I downloaded the video in question, and
my first impression was fakery.