Expedition 16 lands 260 miles and 20 minutes past target?

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:38:55 GMT, "Rocky Top"
wrote:


Photos of the vehicle at the landing site show the heat shield still
shiny and not charred.

If this is true,

It isn't.

It is.

Here's what it should look like (TMA-8):

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...2006e42731.jpg

Here's what it looked like instead (TMA-11).

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/images...04190012HQ.jpg

With the wrong end charred.

Neither photo has anything to do with the original statement that "the
heat shield was shiny and not charred". The heat shield is not visible
in either of those photographs, since it seperated and fell to Earth
elsewhere.

Brian

Dude, pull your head out of your ass. The ship re-entered the atmosphere
head first for a least a portion of its flight. That's an undeniable fact no
matter what happened to the heat shield.

RT

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:26:26 GMT, "Rocky Top"
wrote:


Here's what it should look like (TMA-8):

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/...2006e42731.jpg

Here's what it looked like instead (TMA-11).

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/images...04190012HQ.jpg

With the wrong end charred.

Neither photo has anything to do with the original statement that "the
heat shield was shiny and not charred". The heat shield is not visible
in either of those photographs, since it seperated and fell to Earth
elsewhere.

Dude, pull your head out of your ass.

No need to be rude, kid. Look again at your two photographs above.
Where's the evidence of inverted entry?

The ship re-entered the atmosphere
head first for a least a portion of its flight. That's an undeniable fact no
matter what happened to the heat shield.

The analysis may be correct (inverted entry) but the evidence being
used to support that assessment is incorrect (the heat shield is not
shiny and uncharred) and ambiguous (there is not noticably more
charring on TMA-11 than on previous Soyuz spacecraft.)

The only evidence being presented here, your two photographs above,
don't show a significant difference in appearance between TMA-8 and
TMA-11.

Brian

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:21:14 GMT, "Rocky Top"
wrote:

That's not the assertion that was made. The heat shield seperates from
the Soyuz while still at altitude. The "shiny and not charred" object
is the base of the DM, after the heat shield had seperated to expose
the retro rockets. We haven't seen photos of the actual heat shield.

And your edit is not the way the information was presented.

I edited down to the "evidence" presented, which is totally incorrect
and indicative of someone who is unfamiliar with Soyuz (a rookie
mistake, that one about the heat shield being shiny, and your
credibility was pretty much shot thereafter.) Next time, do some basic
research. Your report is correct: Soyuz did in fact enter inverted for
some period of time. Russia admitted that on Monday, so this was
hardly some scoop of yours.

And your supporting evidence is lacking. There is no heat shield
visible in the photographs of the TMA-11 spacecraft, and the "big
divot" is a common occurence, unrelated to the inverted entry. (After
entry, the descent and touchdown themselves were nominal, albeit off
course.)

The nose was charred well beyond nominal.

Facts not in evidence. There is no indication of this at all in the
photographs. The two photographs you attached in the other message do
not show significantly different appearance of the nose.

The aft end not charred as much.

That is very much open to interpretation. It does look a little less
charred (although not by a disturbing amount.) But this might also be
because the TMA-8 photo is looking at one side of the module (the side
with the hatch), while the TMA-11 photograph is almost exactly the
opposite side (opposite the hatch.)

At least for a portion of the re-entry, the ship was oriented
backwards. THAT is what was a "very serious situation" and could
have led to loss of the crew.

On that we agree. But you need to use real data to support that
assessment, not "JFK conspiracy theory" dubious photographic analysis
and misrepresentation of items in those photographs.

Brian

Dude, pull your head out of your ass. The ship re-entered the atmosphere
head first for a least a portion of its flight. That's an undeniable fact no
matter what happened to the heat shield.


Do we know if the SM eventually separated, and what proportion of the
"hot" re-entry was done with the wrong orientation ?

Do we know if the crew experienced 10Gs while inverted, or was the 10Gs
experienced later on when the capsule had re-oriented itself ?

If the SM didn't separate but just burned away, would they still see
remnants attached to the bottom heat shield that would have separated
shortly before landing ? (I assume that they do recover this from the
toundra ?)

Question:


How do the crews know that the SM has separated from the capsule ?
(since they have no windows with a good view). At the moment of
separation, would the capsule be in a nose first attitude so that the SM
can slow down and nevert be a collision threath ?


Do they just "feel" the jolt from separation ? Does that confirm
separation ? (especially for a crew that was new to Soyuz, they wouldn't
really have a point of reference to compare, would they ?)


Would this have been a case of them knowingly staying nose first while
trying to ditch the reluctant SM, and this happened late enough that
there was already significant heating happening ?