Space Shuttle Explosion
- Thread starter eric
- Start date
my guess is that nasa was trying to save money by not buying a new shuttle so that one was old and the heat proof tiles were getting warn down
Terrible thing to happen - heard talk that a wing got damaged on take-off by debris and there was "structural heating" recorded by sensors before contact was lost - maybe a chunk of heat shielding went and at 12,000 mph that's a lot of friction heat to be going into the airframe.
One flight expert on the BBC thought that the smoke trails on that film started twisting at one point - his rationale was that if one of the control surfaces sheared off, the whole shuttle might have started spinning, which at that velocity would have shaken it apart.
Unhappy end to what was essentially a successful scientific mission.
One flight expert on the BBC thought that the smoke trails on that film started twisting at one point - his rationale was that if one of the control surfaces sheared off, the whole shuttle might have started spinning, which at that velocity would have shaken it apart.
Unhappy end to what was essentially a successful scientific mission.
Thing is... I'm not buyin it yet. Here's why.
T-16 minutes to landing, the orbiter does the first of it's "S" turns. It's the moment that the shuttle goes from rocket boosters to flaps, it goes form SPACE craft to a glider. (Or, more correctly, it goes from floating in space to being a highly polished brick....)
So the fact that they keep on talking about how this happened 16 minutes out from landing got me thinking.
They lost communications with a wing moments before they went out of control. It was also moments before, or durring, the first "S" turn. The footage I've seen stateside here looks like a meteorite falling into the atmosphere, leading me to believe it was out of control.
PLUS, the max heating of reentry is around T-20 minutes to landing!
I have nothing to back this up with, but my theory is that one wing went out. You can't steer a glider with one set of flaps, let alone the flying cow that the orbiter is. So in theory, the orbiter was comgin in as usual, 28-38 degree angle. They try to tip the nose down with the flaps on teh wings, and one wing isn't responding. They try to do an "S" turn, and nothing happens. They try to push the stick (YES, there is a flight stick for landing! it's done MANUALLY!!!!) and one wing responds, the other does not.
The shuttle makes a 'wild' turn (imagine a barrel roll but twisted) that it's not designed for, the pilot lose her, and she tumbles. The top tiles aren't meant to shed heat like the bottom tiles, and the friction of the atmosphere burns them off.
To me this is infinately more plausable than losing "a tile or two" and having the rest sheer off like a zipper or the so-called "Blowtorch" effect if one magical tile was gone. Those tiles aren't just glued in with superglue and grouted in, you know. The orbiter would hae had problems in orbit, IMHO, if this was the case.
Who knows? They could have been hit by a micrometeorite or a loose bit of space junk too. The orbiter was moving around 18 times the speed of sound when the accident happened. At that speed, a wingnut may as well be a wrecking ball.
-Tyger
T-16 minutes to landing, the orbiter does the first of it's "S" turns. It's the moment that the shuttle goes from rocket boosters to flaps, it goes form SPACE craft to a glider. (Or, more correctly, it goes from floating in space to being a highly polished brick....)
So the fact that they keep on talking about how this happened 16 minutes out from landing got me thinking.
They lost communications with a wing moments before they went out of control. It was also moments before, or durring, the first "S" turn. The footage I've seen stateside here looks like a meteorite falling into the atmosphere, leading me to believe it was out of control.
PLUS, the max heating of reentry is around T-20 minutes to landing!
I have nothing to back this up with, but my theory is that one wing went out. You can't steer a glider with one set of flaps, let alone the flying cow that the orbiter is. So in theory, the orbiter was comgin in as usual, 28-38 degree angle. They try to tip the nose down with the flaps on teh wings, and one wing isn't responding. They try to do an "S" turn, and nothing happens. They try to push the stick (YES, there is a flight stick for landing! it's done MANUALLY!!!!) and one wing responds, the other does not.
The shuttle makes a 'wild' turn (imagine a barrel roll but twisted) that it's not designed for, the pilot lose her, and she tumbles. The top tiles aren't meant to shed heat like the bottom tiles, and the friction of the atmosphere burns them off.
To me this is infinately more plausable than losing "a tile or two" and having the rest sheer off like a zipper or the so-called "Blowtorch" effect if one magical tile was gone. Those tiles aren't just glued in with superglue and grouted in, you know. The orbiter would hae had problems in orbit, IMHO, if this was the case.
Who knows? They could have been hit by a micrometeorite or a loose bit of space junk too. The orbiter was moving around 18 times the speed of sound when the accident happened. At that speed, a wingnut may as well be a wrecking ball.
-Tyger
As plausible an explanation as any other we'll hear in the next month, I'm sure. My brother worked on a simulator for the shuttle - used to have a shuttle flight manual in the house, looked damned complicated to me.
Anyone know if it's true what Jello Biafra said in "Falling Space Junk" and they had plutonium on board? I hear that small amounts are used as batteries on satellites.
Anyone know if it's true what Jello Biafra said in "Falling Space Junk" and they had plutonium on board? I hear that small amounts are used as batteries on satellites.
I own that manual. I studied it.
Plutonium on board? Highly unlikely. Then again, if you believe EVERYHTING Jello Biafra says, the fillings in your teeth are little radio transmitters that the US Government uses to keep tabs on where you are. ("Lard" song, Jello did lead vocals) or that all police officers rape women and beat up drunks ("Police Truck" and "Police Raid at 4 AM")
Most satelites use solar power, or they use battery power. Throwing plutonium into the sky has one major problem. When it falls back, you can't guarantee WHERE or sometimes WHEN. Not to meniton that the unthinkable has to be thought. Mainly, if it explodes on the launchpad, or while launching, you could irradiate all of Africa in one shot.
So, no. Probably not.
-Tyger
Plutonium on board? Highly unlikely. Then again, if you believe EVERYHTING Jello Biafra says, the fillings in your teeth are little radio transmitters that the US Government uses to keep tabs on where you are. ("Lard" song, Jello did lead vocals) or that all police officers rape women and beat up drunks ("Police Truck" and "Police Raid at 4 AM")
Most satelites use solar power, or they use battery power. Throwing plutonium into the sky has one major problem. When it falls back, you can't guarantee WHERE or sometimes WHEN. Not to meniton that the unthinkable has to be thought. Mainly, if it explodes on the launchpad, or while launching, you could irradiate all of Africa in one shot.
So, no. Probably not.
-Tyger
Damn the joke,s are out and about already
What does NASA stand for..
NEED ANOTHER SEVEN ASTRONAUTS
Damn thats sick
Ps not my Joke just been told it today
CHEERS BATTY
What does NASA stand for..
NEED ANOTHER SEVEN ASTRONAUTS
Damn thats sick
Ps not my Joke just been told it today
CHEERS BATTY
That was the main worry, yes. Especially when NASA asks people not to go near the wreckage which could be "toxic" (although I'm aware of forensic, propellant and cosmic radiation issues here too). Nevertheless, there has been at least one satellite in recent years using a hot power source, although I'm sure the actual amount was quite small.
There was talk of using a mars rocket with a nuclear stage booster - which I've seen 50-60's ish footage of a scale test version (when they were considering tytpes of propellant for the space program). Wouldn't want a catastrophic launch for that one, either.
Anyhow - will rest assured that the Biafra rant was just a good tune and nothing more.
That was from '86.Originally posted by }{y8ri|)
Damn the joke,s are out and about already
What does NASA stand for..
NEED ANOTHER SEVEN ASTRONAUTS
Damn thats sick
Ps not my Joke just been told it today
CHEERS BATTY
I Remember that from the Challenger disaster