|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote: snip You know, there's a far better video of the smoke plume out there than that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer up. Which is probably one reason why this particular footage was "unreleased," along with the fact that due to the angle of the camera with respect to the trajectory and orientation of the stack immediately prior to and following breakup, you can't really see much that you can't see from much better perspectives elsewhere. If this video footage and other similar footage had actually been released in its entirety to the Commission investigating the accident and the public during the original investigation, we would not be discussing when the smoke ended at all. See my previous comment. Daniel |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
... Charleston wrote: Kind of like this unreleased STS 51-L video where the smoke, uh stops at 3.375 seconds? http://www.challengerdisaster.info/s..._m-2_mpg_i.mpg You know, there's a far better video of the smoke plume out there than that; in fact, I can't even see the smoke plume in that crappy and distorted video. The other video is in color in color and a _lot_ closer up. Okay, I have uploaded MPEG II videos of M-2 and M-3. Still not AVI, nor 3/4", but they are good enough. If you look at M-3 at 10.4 to 10.5 seconds MET, you will notice that the space between the SRBs and the Orbiter (side shot) is obscured by smoke. At MET 12.7 and 12.8 seconds the first right SRB stiffener ring immediately below the base of the ET and from there on up the SRB to the ET is intermittedly obscured by smoke. When you combine M-3 with M-2 you can get a 3-dimensional feel for the smoke's location based on what is being obscured! In a nutshell something is still leaking! I have reviewed prior flight photography and nothing comes close to the density of the smoke (obscured hardware behind smoke) as can be seen on STS 51-L. If you do not have freeze frame/frame by frame advance, it is very difficult to pick-up/appreciate the subtlety of what is happening as described above. Daniel |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article G8dRd.93733$0u.19618@fed1read04,
"Charleston" wrote: Personally, I can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently I see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the SRB flames. Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis Sub-Team" and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and "solid material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the vehicle. Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As you probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final Presidential Commission report. Okay, Daniel - you've explained what it is you perceive in the footage you've provided and you've indicated your agreement with a later-overruled/discredited/under-appreciated/whatever view held by a JSC sub-team. However, I'm now forced to ask a question that keeps popping up in my mind: why does it matter? In other words, what's the significance of your view as opposed to the views and conclusions contained within the Presidential Commission report? -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C "The loss of the American system of checks and balances is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk." -- Bruce Schneier http://dischordia.blogspot.com http://www.angryherb.net |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Charleston wrote: The best motion picture film photography of the smoke puffs at launch, that is the cameras positioned with a direct angle to observe the start-up tranisent as to location, direction of smoke, size, etcetera, all failed to operate! The odds of that failure being coincidence are dim, but it did happen that way. And your point is? As for your inability to see the smoke, please don't blame me. It takes a lot of bandwidth to put up MPEG II or AVI. I will put up some higher resolution photography later tonight for a limited timeframe. Personally, I can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently I see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the SRB flames. That stuff coming off the side of the tank, and falling into the area behind the ET isn't related to the SRB problem, it shows up on every Shuttle launch; it's either some sort of venting from the ET or frost falling off of its exterior surface. Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis Sub-Team" and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and "solid material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the vehicle. Are we talking about the SRB here, or some other part of the vehicle? Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As you probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final Presidential Commission report. As we have photos showing the plume coming out of the SRB and impinging on the ET's surface, followed by the failure of the ET, and also detailed extremely clear film of the burning of the O-rings at the field joint during SRB ignition with a plume of smoke exiting the SRB, this whole thing is about as open and shut case as it's possible to get in regards to the cause of the accident. Pat |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Charleston wrote: Okay, I have uploaded MPEG II videos of M-2 and M-3. Still not AVI, nor 3/4", but they are good enough. If you look at M-3 at 10.4 to 10.5 seconds MET, you will notice that the space between the SRBs and the Orbiter (side shot) is obscured by smoke. At MET 12.7 and 12.8 seconds the first right SRB stiffener ring immediately below the base of the ET and from there on up the SRB to the ET is intermittedly obscured by smoke. Is there some pertinent point to this? NASA says that it leaked at liftoff, stopped leaking, then restarted leaking. You say it was leaking all the way up to a greater or lesser degree. What difference does it make? Pat |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:48:16 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote: What difference does it make? ....Pat, he's on another bender, attempting to unvillify his "Father's" worthless name. Just killfile the little ******* and put him out of our misery again. Please. 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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:41:36 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote: And your point is? ....On his head, as all of his particular strain of inbreeding tend to possess. 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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:03:47 -0600, Herb Schaltegger
wrote: However, I'm now forced to ask a question that keeps popping up in my mind: why does it matter? In other words, what's the significance of your view as opposed to the views and conclusions contained within the Presidential Commission report? ....They're not *his* views, but those of that worthless psychotic janitor of a "father" of his. He's just trying to unbesmirch daddy's name. Just killfile the little ******* and put him out of our misery. 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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
OM wrote: ...Pat, he's on another bender, attempting to unvillify his "Father's" worthless name. Just killfile the little ******* and put him out of our misery again. You notice though that the the theory has changed very considerably from it's first incarnation; now the problem's with the SRB, not the Shuttle's RCS. Pat |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote: Personally, I can see plenty of black smoke up to about 3.4 seconds, and subsequently I see significant diffuse smoke brightly illuminated by the light of the SRB flames. Also, I conclude that the "STS 51-L JSC Visual Data Analysis Sub-Team" and the team at LMSC got it right when they saw smoke and "solid material" as late as 45 seconds emanating from the same region of the vehicle. Unfortuantely, they were overruled by the film team at KSC. As you probably know, it is KSC's views that are reflected in the final Presidential Commission report. Okay, Daniel - you've explained what it is you perceive in the footage you've provided and you've indicated your agreement with a later-overruled/discredited/under-appreciated/whatever view held by a JSC sub-team. "later overuled" The JSC Sub-Team I spoke of stood by their report which was published in June 1986, and they did so only after receiving the final EA (Enhancement/Analysis) report from LMSC (one of many outside groups called in by NASA to help with the photo analysis). The folks at KSC wielded the real power on the Photo and TV Support Team. They based their conclusions and thus their report on preliminary EA work, which was done with inferior photographic products. from http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm (page N-81) we have: "The analyses were hampered in this initial stage (2 weeks after the accident) by the lack of suitable photographic materials to support digital analysis. All organizations reported problems in digitizing from the cut-film transparencies and most resorted to digitizing from 8 x 10 positive prints or abandoned the effort entirely. Exxon and one other laboratory had contact transparencies of E60 and E63 and performed analyses of the smoke at launch." Herb, the KSC Photo Team obeyed a capricious Presidential Commission (PC) deadline. That deadline was extended, in any event, at the request of NASA to address late breaking events like recovering an SRB piece with a hole burned through it. The Photo and TV Support Team could have elected to amend their report as others did. They chose not to do so despite receiving the final report from LMSC in early April. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3appn.htm (page N-81) "c. Results The results of these follow-on analyses were received in the mid-March to early-April timeframe and generally have not been analyzed and consolidated for this report **PC Report**. The findings do, however, generally corroborate the integrated timeline events when the analyses pertain to a particular event." To me at least, "generally corroborate" is a far cry from out right contradict, but that is what the final LMSC report does--contradict the PC report. It is also what the flight photography does. Of course the final PC report could only be as good as the data upon which it was based and basing a Presidential report on preliminary data from early April, when the report is not due on the President's desk until June 9th, seems decidedly foolhardy, or something worse, deceitful. "discredited" I would say the discredited team was working at KSC and they are "discredited" because they chose to draw conclusions before all of the facts were in and to not amend their report when confronted by JSC with said facts based on better photographic products. "under-appreciated" Well, you'd have to ask the JSC team. I believe them to be honest and hard working having spoken to one of the team members myself. However, I'm now forced to ask a question that keeps popping up in my mind: why does it matter? Nah, don't let me force you into anything, please;-) In other words, what's the significance of your view as opposed to the views and conclusions contained within the Presidential Commission report? Well it is pretty simple. If there is smoke up until at least T+45 seconds (JSC/LMSC conclusion) then it is likely that there was always smoke. If there was always smoke, it is difficult to believe the SRB field joint did in fact reseal. If in fact the SRB field joint did not reseal then it is difficult to believe that there was nothing more than smoke for 58 seconds or so. Stated differently, the evidence suggests to me that the early smoke seen at lift-off was not from an SRB filed joint leak at all and if that is the case the real question is where did the smoke really originate? Go ahead OM throw rocks and smoke jokes. I will try to throw objective opinion based on overlooked facts from overlooked reports and overlooked photography that does not seem so very "crappy" to me. Oh, and please don't forget that I can examine the facts fairly decently ala Apollo 1/204. I am not drawing any conclusions as to what ultimately happened but more research is warranted and that is what I am doing. Please consider this an update. Thanks. Daniel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident | Jim Oberg | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 13th 04 05:58 PM |
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident | Jim Oberg | History | 0 | December 13th 04 05:58 PM |
"Hindsight bias" could hide real lessons of Columbia accident report,expert says (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 3rd 03 01:54 AM |
NASA Administrator Accepts Columbia Accident Report | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 3 | August 27th 03 04:48 PM |
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Releases Final Report | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 26th 03 03:30 PM |