ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Columbia Disaster - Dan McNew's amazing video
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> SCIENCE now, add FICTION later
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:18 pm    Post subject: Columbia Disaster - Dan McNew's amazing video Reply with quote

__________________________________

Geraldo Rivera aired the famous Dan McNew video of the Columbia's reentry at 10:00 pm EST the day of the disaster, and the experts he interviewed stated the obvious: the Columbia was turned 90?? to the right from its normal line of flight in the final seconds before it began to burn up.

And yet according to a New York Times arcle, NASA later proclaimed that — "In the case of Mr. McNew, NASA concluded that he had not, in fact, captured a video image of the shuttle flying sideways. Video analysis showed that the camera distorted the image, producing a visual halo that made it appear several times the size it would be if the picture had been clear."

Damn. That's crazy folks. I knew what this showed the first time I saw it in 2003, and it's still obviously the shuttle being viewed from the rear and at a low angle. This takes place 5 seconds before it begins to visibly glow and smoke.

Dan McNew zooms in at the 8 second mark, and we see the images shown below until he zooms back out at the 13 second mark. During those five seconds a faint trail of reddish smoke begins to stream off, just before Dan zooms back out.









At the 15 second mark, just two seconds later, the shuttle glows brighter and the thick smoke streams off to the right. Not until the shuttle almost goes out of sight over the horizon and Dan zooms in again at the 42 second mark do we see the glowing fragments of the shuttle which are shown in many of the other videos.

That means those videos were taken a full 30 seconds before the shuttle twisted sideways and caught the brunt of the wind along its left side, causing it to be destroyed by the heat.

Furthermore, you can actually spot what I believe to be the vertical stabilizer after it snapped off during the first few seconds of the sideways flight — which it would do almost instantly, because the force of the wind at a right angle to its normal position would be horrendous.

You can see the stabilizer very faintly as it tumbles slowly and flashes faintly in the sun, falling away from the Columbia in the first seconds of its sideways attitude. Bear in mind that I've never heard anyone else claim that those tiny flashes were the stabilizer. I spotted it on my own., years ago.

Watch carefully at the 13 second mark, below and to the right of the Columbia. You'll see the stabilizer reflect the sun briefly at that moment as it drops away and falls behind the shuttle. Dan's camera is in the process of zooming back out at that point, and the apparent distance between the shuttle and the falling stabilizer shrinks as it does, but it remains in the same relative position.

So the glint is not caused by a light flare on the lens. It definitely is a piece of falling debris. But it's not glowing and smoking the way the other debris does, because it snapped off prior to the point when the shuttle began to glow brighter and burn up.


__________________________________

__ Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster - Eyewitness Video


_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:19 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist


Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud, I'm not sure which part of the story you are agreeing or disagreeing with when you say, "Damn. That's crazy folks".

NASA is certainly right about this: "In the case of Mr. McNew, NASA concluded that he had not, in fact, captured a video image of the shuttle flying sideways. Video analysis showed that the camera distorted the image, producing a visual halo that made it appear several times the size it would be if the picture had been clear."

The close up images are of no use. They are a distorted blur which show nothing at all of the shuttle.

But the zoomed out images are obviously valuable in helping establish a timeline.

I'm not sure if you and I are on the same page.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brent wrote:
The close up images are of no use. They are a distorted blur which show nothing at all of the shuttle.

You're mistaken, Brent. Consider the following.

When the camera zooms in on the shuttle, we can see the smoke begin to trail away, but the shuttle has not yet fragmented and begun to burn up. The NASA investigation determined that in the last moments of controlled flight, the damaged shuttle began to twist and tumble as the deterioration of the wing progressed.

What we see in the zoomed-in portion of the video does not appear to show the shuttle tumbling yet. And this is obviously not the shape of the shuttle in profile, with the nose pointed to the left, as it should be.






The bilateral symmetry of the shape (blurry though it may be) argues against the picture above being a distorted version of what we see in these two images below.







However, if the shuttle was flying sideways and facing away from us, the blurry image is more consistent with this angle of view, with bilateral symmetry.





If we adjust the image to simulate the blur (and remove the sheered-off vertical stabilizer), it looks even more like the video image.





The NASA report states that the on-board navigation system was applying more and more correction to compensate for the drag on the left side, caused by the rapidly deteriorating wing. When a large section of the left wing finally ripped away (as the report also states), the thrusters suddenly lost the resistance they'd been fighting, and the spacecraft twisted to the right.

This would position it as seen in the photo from the video.






Notice too that seconds later, when spacecraft begins to burn, the trail of smoke is coming from the upper part of the shuttle, not from the lower part. If this image is the spacecraft turned sideways, and the left flank is heating up, the wing along be lower edge of the flank would cause the smoke to flow up and over the top of the fuselage, then trail away behind it just as we see above.

In view of all these considerations, I still maintain that the video shows the shuttle flying sideways for several seconds before it final burns up and disintegrates.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist


Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud, I think you are mistaken.

And I have to side with NASA who, I assume, has some expertise with such image analysis.

The stills from the McNew video show absolutely nothing identifiable. The camera would certainly be incapable of focusing on anything and it just produced a useless blur inside the shadow of aperture blades. There's nothing discernible inside that blur. Trying to autofocus on a lightbulb at 100 yards would probably yield an identical image. The shuttle could be pointed left, right, up or down and you couldn't tell by that image.

People see a space shuttle in that image because they want to see a space shuttle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Forgive me, Brent, but your claim that "there's nothing discernible inside that blur" sounds just as illogical as the New York Times statement, which says —

"In the case of Mr. McNew, NASA concluded that he had not, in fact, captured a video image of the shuttle flying sideways. Video analysis showed that the camera distorted the image, producing a visual halo that made it appear several times the size it would be if the picture had been clear."


Brent wrote:
The camera would certainly be incapable of focusing on anything and it just produced a useless blur inside the shadow of aperture blades.

My own digital camera auto-focuses quite well when I zoom in, so I question the accuracy of this statement.

The image is obviously bright and fuzzy, but it does have a distinct shape, with areas that agree with how the sunlight would illuminate the shuttle's upper area while leaving the flat bottom in relative shadow. The perfect lateral symmetry, as I said earlier, agrees with the way a rear view would look.

It is not just a blur with "nothing discernible" — and please note that NASA doesn't describe it that way, even though you do. In fact, NASA initially thought it looked like a rear view of the shuttle, which is why they carefully examined the images. They even bought the camera from Dan McNew to do tests on it!

The puzzling conclusion they came to was that the camera "made it appear several times the size it would be if the picture had been clear."

They didn't say it changed the shape. Just the size. But they agreed it looked like the shuttle flying sideways, and that remains the most logical explanation for what we're seeing.

In fact, at that particular moment there's no way the Columbia could have been flying straight and normal.

It had to be tumbling at that point, because exactly five seconds later (as seen on the time index below) it lit up and left a comet tail behind it.





I can't understand why NASA would conclude that the image did not show the Columbia flying sideways, when according to their own report, it was tumbling out of the control.

Therefore, we might not agree that the image shows the Columbia flying sideways, but in reality it was sideways . . . or backwards, or upside down. It was definitely not flying normally, and sideways certainly seems to be what the image shows.

And since the shuttle did in fact tumble and twist before it broke up, why is it so hard to believe that what we see in the video is a blurry image of this —



— and not an image of this —



— even if it was grossly distorted by "a visual halo that made it appear several times the size it would be if the picture had been clear." I'm sure NASA never intended to suggest that the image in the video (below, on the right) is a distortion of the shuttle shown on the left — especial since it was tumbling at that moment.



Compare the picture below of the shuttle shown from the rear (with adjustments made to the original so that it appears to be in strong daylight) to the image from the video. There's no denying that the shape and shading on both images have a lot in common.



But the real reason I think it's a mistake to say the video doesn't show the shuttle flying sideways is because we can sum up what NASA is saying like this:

"Our investigation shows that the Columbia's damaged wing caused it to tumble out of control and burn up several seconds later. This video was definitely shot at the exact moment that happened. But we don't think the video actually shows the Columbia tumbling out of control — even though it was. We've concluded that it only resembles the shuttle tumbling out of control because the camera distorted the image."

In short, Brent, they're telling us the video of the shuttle flying sideways only looks like it's flying sideways because it's blurry and distorted. Rolling Eyes

Whereas I'm saying the blurry and distort video shows the shuttle flying sideways . . . because it's flying sideways.
Cool
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:38 pm; edited 8 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It "looks" like a flat spin , which could well happen as atmosphere begins to affect the now unsymmetrical profile of the shuttle.

Lens blur is also a possibility, so I'd say either could be right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gord Green wrote:
It "looks" like a flat spin , which could well happen as atmosphere begins to affect the now unsymmetrical profile of the shuttle.

Pre . . . cisely, Professor Green! Thank you, sir! Very Happy
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist


Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I don't feel that agreeing with BOTH NASA and THE NEW YORK TIMES puts me on the weak side of the argument.

I know some people want to see the backside of the space shuttle in that blur.

I'm siding with the experts on this one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brent Gair wrote:
Well, I don't feel that agreeing with BOTH NASA and THE NEW YORK TIMES puts me on the weak side of the argument.

Actually you're only agreeing with the photo analyst who didn't want go on record as saying it was definitely the Columbia turned sideways. Wink

The Times just reported that fact. They don't have a published opinion on the subject.

I'm siding with the clear evidence of my own eyes, and with the many logical reasons I presented — and with Dr. Raymond Askew, former space station chief scientist, who viewed the video and said that it showed the shuttle turned in the wrong direction! Shocked

Blurry or not, the shuttle did fly sideways, and the video shows it. But thanks for giving me the chance to have fun "proving you wrong".

(Or not . . . as Wayne would say.) Very Happy


_ Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster - Interview on FOX


_________

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still, NASA admitted the shuttle was "tumbling" at the time.

The picture clearly shows a vehicle changing profile, and fits the definition of a spin. To wit:

The aerodynamics of a spin are very complicated, and for ease of understanding the aerodynamics of each phase of a spin should be analyzed separately. The phases of a spin are: entry, incipient, and fully developed.

The entry phase begins with the aggravated stall and ends when the aircraft departs controlled flight. The incipient phase occurs between the departure from controlled flight and the point when the forces acting on the aircraft equilibrate. The fully developed phase is characterized by equilibrium between the aerodynamic and inertial forces.

The entry phase of a spin is characterized by an aggravated stall, ( In the shuttles case the deterioration of the wing-stabilizer surfaces ) causing the aircraft to depart controlled flight. A stall can become aggravated in two ways: a prolonged slip (or more importantly a skid) or a sudden yawing motion at the time of stall.

Eventually it will result in a rolling motion in the direction of the prolonged slip or skid.

This rolling motion induces a higher angle of attack on the downward wing, resulting in an aggravated stall situation where the downward wing is more stalled than the upward wing. A sudden yawing motion at the time of stall causes the outside wing to travel faster than the inside wing. Or in this case the lack of a wing surface.

This creates more lift on the outside wing compared to the inside wing, which results in rolling motion toward the inside wing and causes the inside wing to be at a higher angle of attack than the outside wing. In either case the airplane enters a state of aggravated stall where one wing is stalled more than the other.

The wing that is more stalled creates more drag and less lift than the less stalled wing, and this imbalance of forces pulls the aircraft away from controlled flight in the direction of the more stalled wing

The incipient phase of a spin is characterized by a continued imbalance of lift and drag that continues to pull the aircraft into the spin.

In general, the incipient phase lasts for approximately two rotations, during which the rotation rate of the spin increases.

The increase in rotation rate causes the outside wing to increase its velocity, which corresponds to a lower angle of attack. This deepens the aggravated stall, causing a greater imbalance of forces that increases the rotation rate until the spin reaches equilibrium.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Right!

And it turned sideways, too!

See? Shocked




* This is from the new Blu-ray of Dan McNew's video I bought today, just for Brent's benefit. And hey, he's right, Blu-ray does makes a huge difference!

THIS ought to clear up the matter nicely.
Very Happy
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:45 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Brent Gair
Mission Specialist


Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 465

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gord Green wrote:
The picture clearly shows a vehicle changing profile...

The picture clearly shows nothing.

This is like people looking at pictures of the grassy knoll and seeing the faces of assassins behind a fence. It's the face on Mars.

People are imagining that they see something in an unfocused blur. They have become invested in a fantasy based on an optical illusion.

There is literally NOTHING to see in that blur.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gord Green wrote:
The picture clearly shows a vehicle changing profile, and fits the definition of a spin. To wit:...

The detailed description that followed, of an aircraft entering into a spin, sounds a lot like that of a conventional subsonic aerodynamic spin. I would think that the dynamics of a hypersonic projectile in rarefied atmosphere conform more to those of ballistics.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17020
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

orzel-w wrote:
Gord Green wrote:
The picture clearly shows a vehicle changing profile, and fits the definition of a spin. To wit:...

The detailed description that followed, of an aircraft entering into a spin, sounds a lot like that of a conventional subsonic aerodynamic spin. I would think that the dynamics of a hypersonic projectile in rarefied atmosphere conform more to those of ballistics.

Based on some comments in a few of the NASA videos I watched, the computer was trying to turn the shuttle to the right to compensate for the increasing drag caused by the deteriorating wing.





The crew wasn't even aware that the shuttle was fighting to counteract the increasing drag, but the tug-a-war got worse and worse.





When the wing finally lost so much material that it actually began to cause less drag than the right wing, the computer didn't react quickly enough, and the thrusters twisted the Columbia to right.





A moment later, Dan McNew got his close-up of the poor shuttle zooming along sideways, the left flank heating up from the full force of the wind. We see the smoke begin to stream over the top —





— and within ten seconds of the 90?? twist, it lit up like a star and disintegrated right in front of us.





Remember, the "spin" only lasted about 10 seconds. It was apparently zipping right along prior to the close-up, and it started burning ten seconds after that. During the five second close-up it doesn't appear to change attitude. No spin is visible at all.

Despite the lack detail in the close-up image, the reflected sunlight would have changed visibly on the various surfaces if the shuttle had been spinning. Even the white sides and top would have looked markedly different if they were viewed at different angles during a spin. And the dark gray bottom would have certainly looked different than the white fuselage if it were tumbling or spinning.

Frankly I'm a little puzzled that we don't see any twisting or turning during the five second close-up. I suspect the computer was making some last-ditch efforts to control the orientation of the spacecraft, but all it managed to do was hold it sideways for those five seconds and cause the left flank to roast from the air friction.
Sad
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud Brewster wrote:
...all it managed to do was hold it sideways for those five seconds and cause the left flank to roast from the air friction.

Technicality: Air friction has very little to do with heating at high speeds. It's air compression that heats things up at speeds above sonic.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> SCIENCE now, add FICTION later All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group