Tank Foam or SRB Equipment?

As you know, I've already posted links to the video, frame-by-frame;
and that does *not* "clearly show the foam breaking off the ET."

I almost forgot to mention: when you watch the video, you can see the
chunk break off of the ET... several seconds *after* the RSRM's have
fallen away. The shuttle is likely miles away from the boosters when
the bit breaks off. So, if the chunk comes from the boosters, then that
means NASA has successfully developed a warp drive or transporter
program, capable of teleporting bits of the SRB to the side of the ET.

wrote:
As you know, I've already posted links to the video, frame-by-frame;
and that does *not* "clearly show the foam breaking off the ET."

I almost forgot to mention: when you watch the video, you can see the
chunk break off of the ET... several seconds *after* the RSRM's have
fallen away.

You keep talking about "the video," but you consistently refuse to
provide a link to same. No one is going to take your word for what you
claim. You keep referring to "size and shape," while consistently
disregarding the length issue. With all the water over the dam at this
late point, no one will buy NASA's explanation without recovery photos
of the SRB and expert radar analysis.

Challenger's Ghost

You keep talking about "the video," but you consistently refuse to
provide a link to same.

It's called a "VCR." NASA TV broadcast the ET cam footage, along with
numerous other cameras, Tuesday after the launch.

You keep referring to "size and shape," while consistently
disregarding the length issue.

The length is abotu 30 inches. The chunk compares well in size to the
LOX feed line that is seen in the ET cam footage.

Damon Hill wrote:

Conventional knowledge is always wrong; the kook is always right.

begin 1986, after Challenger explosion

DR. LITTLES: Well, I for one, and I'm not an expert and that is why I
asked my experts to go off and put together a story and come convince
me, because when I look at the black and white photographs I, with an
untrained eye admittedly, can see what I think is white smoke emanating
from near that leak check port.

DR. FEYNMAN: Might I suggest that on a thing like this the idea of an
expert and an untrained eye as compared to a trained eye is a myth.
There is no training for this particular kind of observation about leak
check ports on a particular booster.

DR. LITTLES: Yes, sir, I tend to agree with that. By "expert" I was
referring to people that we have who routinely, every flight, look at
all the photographs and become very competent in looking at these kind
of deviants.

DR. FEYNMAN: When you get curious, you can do it yourself and make up
your own mind.

end 1986, after Challenger explosion

begin 2005, after Discovery launch

WAYNE HALE: I talked with two senior members of the Photo Imagery
Group.

WAYNE HALE: You have to have some experience and knowledge in order to
interpret the photography.

WAYNE HALE: The guys are going over that *frame by frame*!

WAYNE HALE: We're waitin' for the experts to come back and tell us.

end 2005, after Discovery launch

Bottom line? Full circle at NASA, and even here!

Challenger's Ghost

Ghost wrote:
wrote:
You keep talking about "the video," but you consistently refuse to
provide a link to same.

It's called a "VCR." NASA TV broadcast the ET cam footage, along with
numerous other cameras, Tuesday after the launch.

In that case, you should have absolutely no problem providing a
permanent link to this video, which you and NASA consider so vital.
Most of us saw *nothing* come off in real-time, so providing a quality
rerun is critical if NASA hopes to establish credibility!

You keep referring to "size and shape," while consistently
disregarding the length issue.

The length is abotu 30 inches.

So you **say**. Frame-by-frame shows no such puny thing. NASA makes no
definite claim, because NASA has provided nothing at this point but its
own inconclusive photo interpretation.

Challenger's Ghost

In that case, you should have absolutely no problem providing a
permanent link to this video

Indeed so. It's on a videotape I've loaned toa co-=worker. I've no
intention of taping over it; it is theus, to a limitted definition of
the term, "permanent."

Most of us saw *nothing* come off in real-time

That's because it happens fast, and if you don;t know to look for it,
you might not see it. Onc eyou get off your butt and record the ET cam
footage they show on NASA TV, you'll be able to see it come flappign
off a second or two after you see the SRB's fall away.

But you don;t need the video to figure out the timing: in the stills
you yourself posted a link to... there are no SRB's visible. While
earlier in the flight, you *coudl* see SRBs at the side of the frame.
The reason why the SRBs are no longer visible is not due to them
crawlign over the surface of the ET, but because they are *gone.*

providing a quality rerun is critical if NASA hopes to establish credibility!

And NASA did exactly that. About 40 minutes or so after liftoff, when
there was nothing much else to show video-wise, NASA started
broadcasting other camera angles, ET cam being one.

Instead of demanding that everyone else do your research for you...
just record the damned thing. Or use so logic. Either way will
adequately show that the bit that came off was clearly from the ET, and
fits quite nicely in the void seen in the post-sep photos. Same shape,
same size, same location. One way you can approximate how big it was:
it was about the same length as the diameter of the LOX line. The LOX
lline is what you see in the ET cam footage... not the ET. The camera
was mounted at the head end of the LOX line, and looks directly down
the line, so the LOX line takes up most of the bottom of the frame.

In this image, you can see the SRB at the side of the frame shortly
after liftoff:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...mmt_072605.jpg

In this frame, you can see the Chunk flying off... and no SRB in sight:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...mmt_072605.jpg

You can see where its coming from, you can compare it's length to the
diameter of the LOX line at that point... and there you are.

Now: do you *need* video to figure this out?

wrote:

In this image, you can see the SRB at the side of the frame shortly
after liftoff:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...mmt_072605.jpg

In this frame, you can see the Chunk flying off... and no SRB in sight:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...mmt_072605.jpg

Sorry, I've seen those. What I have *not* seen is frame-count evidence
of how far from SRB-sep the fly-away object first rears its ugly head.
I'll give you an 'E' for effort, though.

You can see where its coming from, you can compare it's length to the
diameter of the LOX line at that point... and there you are.

Sorry, right now I still believe it's more important to compare its
length to the diameter of the tank at that point.

Now: do you *need* video to figure this out?

Sure I do, since you're still basing your argument on inclusive video
viewed dynamically. Scott, I need to see all the relevant frames you
think I'm missing from the *frame-by-frame* video to which I posted a
link. You can't refute that slideshow evidence without providing
*additional* frames.

I did see a lightning fast rerun of it on TV tonight, but that did even
begin to dissuade me. The breakaway object began to appear at about the
vertical level which I have stated previously. Frankly, there were not
enough frames for me to even notice whether or not the SRB was present
at the beginning. A slomo of it might convince me one way or the other,
if I could rerun it a few times.

Challenger's Ghost

wrote:

wrote:


In this image, you can see the SRB at the side of the frame shortly
after liftoff:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...mmt_072605.jpg

In this frame, you can see the Chunk flying off... and no SRB in sight:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...mmt_072605.jpg



Sorry, I've seen those.

Good. Then you know that the SRB is clearly visible when it's attached,
and that the chunk comes off well after the separation of the SRBs from
the ET. Discussion closed.


Sorry, right now I still believe it's more important to compare its
length to the diameter of the tank at that point.



Then use this photo:

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005...4e5070_low.jpg

A direct comparison is thus simple.



Now: do you *need* video to figure this out?



Sure I do, since you're still basing your argument on inclusive video
viewed dynamically. Scott, I need to see all the relevant frames you
think I'm missing from the *frame-by-frame* video to which I posted a
link. You can't refute that slideshow evidence without providing
*additional* frames.


You have no evidence needing refuting.







--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

Scott Lowther wrote:
wrote:

Then you know
snip
that the chunk comes off well after the separation of the SRBs from
the ET.

You've shown *no* proof of that. As far as I know at this point, a
piece flying off the PAR and a piece breaking away from the SRB could
be separate events. Until someone subpoenas all the relevant data, they
could also both be non-events.

Discussion closed.

Suits me. Your mind was closed as well, from the beginning.

Challenger's Ghost

wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:


wrote:

Then you know


snip


that the chunk comes off well after the separation of the SRBs from
the ET.



You've shown *no* proof of that. As far as I know at this point, a
piece flying off the PAR and a piece breaking away from the SRB could
be separate events. Until someone subpoenas all the relevant data, they
could also both be non-events.



Discussion closed.



Suits me. Your mind was closed as well, from the beginning.

Challenger's Ghost



Yeah. I guess I *should* have considered the possibility that the thing
seen on video clearly breaking away from the ET several seconds after
SRB sep was actually a pterodactyl glued to the ET by Cylons piloting
Nazi flying saucers using Sasquatch navigators. What *ever* was I thinking?

--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller