Shuttle Re-entry and Break-up

Hi All,

In case anyone's up and checking their mail, you may
want to turn on your TV sets.  The shuttle Columbia
broke-up over Texas during it's re-entry this morning
about an hour ago.  CNN is covering this heavily.

Bill

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

[ikluft <at> thunder.sbay.org: [SAT-L] shuttle disaster]

-- 
Sean Lynch http://sean.lynch.tv/

I was hoping to come back from the mountain with a happy story of having seen
a normal space shuttle re-entry.  We did see the shuttle come over the Bay
Area.  But everyone whom I watched with noticed that the ion trail was much
more obvious than on previous viewings, looking more like a smoke trail.
Unfortunately, anyone who has seen the news knows that Columbia did not make
it to Florida.  It broke up at 200,000' over Texas south of Dallas, and
there was no chance for the crew to get out at that altitude.

So unfortunately, I should encourage anyone who saw the re-entry to write
down what you saw.  If you got pictures (and some of the astronomers whom
I met there from the Peninsula Astronomical Society got video), please save
the information in case it can be of any use for the crash investigation.

In memory of the crew of STS-107 Columbia...

_______________________________________________
SAT-L mailing list
WVARA Satellite Special Interest Group

Re: [ikluft <at> thunder.sbay.org: [SAT-L] shuttle disaster]

At 09:20 AM 2/1/2003, you wrote:
>Was that meant for the list? It only went to me. I have read that a
>piece of insulating foam broke off of the external tank and is believed
>to have struck the left wing. Damage to the TPS could have resulted in a
>burn-through as well. The engineers at NASA didn't seem to think it
>would be a problem and they flew their normal reentry trajectory. So I
>guess now we have two possibilities.

That was meant for the list, I keep forgetting that the ERPS list doesn't 
have the right headers on it.

I heard about the insulation, too.  But, apparently they lost contact with 
the shuttle at 9am right when those power units were turned on.  I believe 
they are turned on before the insulation would matter.

----------
Jerry Durand
Durand Interstellar, Inc.
219 Oak Wood Way
Los Gatos, California 95032-2523  USA
tel:  +1 408 356-3886
fax:  +1 408 356-4659
web:  www.interstellar.com

Re: [ikluft <at> thunder.sbay.org: [SAT-L] shuttle disaster]

Jerry Durand wrote:

> I heard about the insulation, too.  But, apparently they lost contact 
> with the shuttle at 9am right when those power units were turned on.  I 
> believe they are turned on before the insulation would matter.

Either way - and call me a demagogue for this if you want - I really
hope that part of our plan, where we make space flight cheap enough that
one can test launch vehicles to high reliability and properly fix things
if they break or get close to wearing out, can come into effect in time
to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

Re: [ikluft <at> thunder.sbay.org: [SAT-L] shuttle disaster]

At 09:35 AM 2/1/2003 -0800, Jerry Durand wrote:
>At 09:20 AM 2/1/2003, you wrote:
>>Was that meant for the list? It only went to me. I have read that a
>>piece of insulating foam broke off of the external tank and is believed
>>to have struck the left wing. Damage to the TPS could have resulted in a
>>burn-through as well. The engineers at NASA didn't seem to think it
>>would be a problem and they flew their normal reentry trajectory. So I
>>guess now we have two possibilities.
>
>
>That was meant for the list, I keep forgetting that the ERPS list doesn't 
>have the right headers on it.
>
>I heard about the insulation, too.  But, apparently they lost contact with 
>the shuttle at 9am right when those power units were turned on.  I believe 
>they are turned on before the insulation would matter.

         If they were at 200,000 feet, wouldn't that be at the tail of the 
blackout period, or shortly afterwards?

         -p

Mars or Bust!
www.marssociety.com

Re: [ikluft <at> thunder.sbay.org: [SAT-L] shuttle disaster]

On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Pierce Nichols wrote:
>          If they were at 200,000 feet, wouldn't that be at the tail of the 
> blackout period, or shortly afterwards?

There is no blackout period for the shuttle.  Thanks to having relay
satellites looking down from above, communications are continuous 
throughout reentry.

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       henry <at> spsystems.net

Re: [ikluft <at> thunder.sbay.org: [SAT-L] shuttle disaster]

Henry Spencer wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Pierce Nichols wrote:
> 
>>         If they were at 200,000 feet, wouldn't that be at the tail of the 
>>blackout period, or shortly afterwards?
> 
> 
> There is no blackout period for the shuttle.  Thanks to having relay
> satellites looking down from above, communications are continuous 
> throughout reentry.
> 
>                                                           Henry Spencer
>                                                        henry <at> spsystems.net

I watched the reentry from Mojave, CA at about 0553 this morning. 
Although there was some light haze (clearly visible when viewing Venus 
and Jupiter with 10x50 binoculars while waiting for the event), I was 
able to see an orange dot leaving a glowing trail behind it.  At about 
the time of closest approach (about 220 miles, I believe) the brightness 
flared for an instant and a small speck came away from the main body, 
drifting backwards relative to it.  Over about ten seconds, it dimmed 
and went out, then perhaps thirty seconds later the shuttle flared again 
but no debris was visible.  It appeared intact until I lost in the dawn 
glow a minute later.

This may have been the first direct element in the chain of events.  The 
temetry and voice recordings will, with luck, tell a more complete tale.

It's a grim test case, but this is another data point for Ec 
calculations.  Damn.

Re: [ikluft <at> thunder.sbay.org: [SAT-L] shuttle disaster]

Adrian Tymes wrote:
> 
> Jerry Durand wrote:
> 
> > I heard about the insulation, too.  But, apparently they lost contact
> > with the shuttle at 9am right when those power units were turned on.  I
> > believe they are turned on before the insulation would matter.
> 
> Either way - and call me a demagogue for this if you want - I really
> hope that part of our plan, where we make space flight cheap enough that
> one can test launch vehicles to high reliability and properly fix things
> if they break or get close to wearing out, can come into effect in time
> to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ERPS-list mailing list
> ERPS-list <at> lists.erps.org
> http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list

Columbia was old, heavy and long past her retirement age. We have
learned a lot since she was built.

Seven more stars in the firmament tonight, alas. 

Aleta

Re: [ikluft <at> thunder.sbay.org: [SAT-L] shuttle disaster]

Yes.  They were at the peak stress on the shuttle.

Tony Fredericks                 "Mind that bus!"
Amateur Rocket Scientist        "What Bus?"
E.R.P.S. Member                 SPLAT!! - Arnold Rimmer

>From: Pierce Nichols <forkbomb <at> earthlink.net>
>To: Jerry Durand <jd <at> interstellar.com>,Sean Lynch <seanl <at> chaosring.org>
>CC: erps-list <at> lists.erps.org
>Subject: Re: [ERPS] [ikluft <at> thunder.sbay.org: [SAT-L] shuttle disaster]
>Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 10:12:14 -0800
>
>At 09:35 AM 2/1/2003 -0800, Jerry Durand wrote:
>>At 09:20 AM 2/1/2003, you wrote:
>>>Was that meant for the list? It only went to me. I have read that a
>>>piece of insulating foam broke off of the external tank and is believed
>>>to have struck the left wing. Damage to the TPS could have resulted in a
>>>burn-through as well. The engineers at NASA didn't seem to think it
>>>would be a problem and they flew their normal reentry trajectory. So I
>>>guess now we have two possibilities.
>>
>>
>>That was meant for the list, I keep forgetting that the ERPS list doesn't 
>>have the right headers on it.
>>
>>I heard about the insulation, too.  But, apparently they lost contact with 
>>the shuttle at 9am right when those power units were turned on.  I believe 
>>they are turned on before the insulation would matter.
>

Re: [ikluft <at> thunder.sbay.org: [SAT-L] shuttle disaster]

> From: ikluft <at> thunder.sbay.org (Ian Kluft)
> 
> I was hoping to come back from the mountain with a happy story of having seen
> a normal space shuttle re-entry.  We did see the shuttle come over the Bay
> Area.  But everyone whom I watched with noticed that the ion trail was much
> more obvious than on previous viewings, looking more like a smoke trail.
> Unfortunately, anyone who has seen the news knows that Columbia did not make
> it to Florida.  It broke up at 200,000' over Texas south of Dallas, and
> there was no chance for the crew to get out at that altitude.
> 
> So unfortunately, I should encourage anyone who saw the re-entry to write
> down what you saw.  If you got pictures (and some of the astronomers whom
> I met there from the Peninsula Astronomical Society got video), please save
> the information in case it can be of any use for the crash investigation.

NASA has released contact pointers for anyone with such information:
(From spaceflightnow.com)

----------------------------------------------------
     Anyone who discovers debris from the
     accident or who has film or video evidence
     that may be of value to the investigation
     team is urged to use these contacts. Please
     avoid contact with any debris, because it
     may be hazardous as a result of toxic
     propellants aboard the Shuttle. 

     Telephone reports should be directed to the
     following number: 281/483-3388