|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CAIB releases detailed "working scenario"
Some interesting gems in this document, such as this one on p. 63:
quote While Columbia was on-orbit, there was no indication of damage from either the ascent foam impact or a micrometeoroid/orbital debris (MMOD) hypervelocity debris impact based on orbiter telemetry, crew downlinked video and still photography, or crew reports. Multiple comprehensive postflight reviews of the same data indicated that there was nothing unusual with any of Columbia.s systems or structure. /quote Hmm, guess Tom Wheeler never contacted the CAIB like people urged him to do, huh? -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
CAIB releases detailed "working scenario"
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Some interesting gems in this document, such as this one on p. 63: quote While Columbia was on-orbit, there was no indication of damage from either the ascent foam impact or a micrometeoroid/orbital debris (MMOD) hypervelocity debris impact based on orbiter telemetry, crew downlinked video and still photography, or crew reports. Multiple comprehensive postflight reviews of the same data indicated that there was nothing unusual with any of Columbia.s systems or structure. /quote Hmm, guess Tom Wheeler never contacted the CAIB like people urged him to do, huh? I used Tom's methods with some other pictures and made an amazing discovery myself. In response to another poster's contention that it is dangerous to allow a returning shuttle to fly over populated areas, I did a little research. I found a photo taken from orbit of the Dallas-Fort Worth area of northern Texas. I enlarged it in Photoshop and enhanced the contrast. Then I enlarged it some more. You know what? I couldn't see any people there at all! So I would say that yes, it is safe to bring in a shuttle that may be damaged over big cities. Oh, sure, now I suppose you're going to tell me that Tom's methods weren't valid... -- bp Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CAIB releases detailed "working scenario"
On 11 Jul 2003 23:25:59 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote: Hmm, guess Tom Wheeler never contacted the CAIB like people urged him to do, huh? ....Nope. Sure didn't. Wonder why? 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
CAIB releases detailed "working scenario"
Looking through the report, it's interesting to note all the contributions
that can be traced back to SSS. In some small way, maybe we've all helped make a space a safer place. Nice work people! "Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... Some interesting gems in this document, such as this one on p. 63: quote While Columbia was on-orbit, there was no indication of damage from either the ascent foam impact or a micrometeoroid/orbital debris (MMOD) hypervelocity debris impact based on orbiter telemetry, crew downlinked video and still photography, or crew reports. Multiple comprehensive postflight reviews of the same data indicated that there was nothing unusual with any of Columbia.s systems or structure. /quote Hmm, guess Tom Wheeler never contacted the CAIB like people urged him to do, huh? -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
CAIB releases detailed "working scenario"
"Mike Dennis" wrote in
: Looking through the report, it's interesting to note all the contributions that can be traced back to SSS. In some small way, maybe we've all helped make a space a safer place. Nice work people! Well, to be fair, most of what we've discussed has also been discussed at the CAIB's press briefings, on which this "working scenario" document was based. So it's probably more a matter of us paying attention to the CAIB than vice-versa. That said, while I know of no CAIB board members who read sci.space.*, there are at least two members of the CAIB advisory panel who used to post here, and can be presumed to lurk here. So it is possible, though unlikely, that our discussions have had some indirect influence on the board. And no, I'm not going to identify the two. You'll just have to guess. :-) -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
CAIB releases detailed "working scenario"
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... That said, while I know of no CAIB board members who read sci.space.*, there are at least two members of the CAIB advisory panel who used to post here, and can be presumed to lurk here. So it is possible, though unlikely, that our discussions have had some indirect influence on the board. No kidding? I sent them a letter a couple of weeks ago with a suggestion for debris recovery efforts. If I'd have known that, I might have saved myself 37 cents. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|