my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Space shuttle Columbia appears lost (Page 5)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: Space shuttle Columbia appears lost Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-05-2003 10:52 PM                    You'd need more seals on the projector to prevent oil leakage in microgravity; I think xenon would be fine and have extended bulb life due to the more even plasma distribution. But you can forget about using a platter. Reel to reel or giant reels only.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-05-2003 11:33 PM                     I can just see one of the film reels getting loose....it would spin out of control for eons! Of course space might be a good place for a Pro 35....pretty much already filled with oil, and somewhat sealed up. A service call to replace a bad coupling would only cost billions..... Mark  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-05-2003 11:37 PM                     Charge by the mile? Would you?  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 02-06-2003 12:43 AM                        The Navy for some reason seems to be particularly anal about claiming found aircraft wrecks. Over the years they've gone to court several times against various aircraft restoration groups wanting to salvage USN aircraft. USAF on the other hand doesn't seem to care as much. Here in the desert southwest there are still quite a few wrecks extant. In the USAFA (nee CAP) we used to go out and repaint the ones in our area in dayglo orange every few years so air search crews wouldn't mistake them for new. Was good ground team training--the new guys got to do some real hiking and orienteering and see what real wrecks look like (which is usually nothing like the way Hollywood portrays them). The loss of Columbia and her crew brings back painful memories for me. In 1986 I was a spacecraft control shift leader at the Hughes OCC and MCC in El Segundo, CA. Greg Jarvis was a colleague and was aboard Challenger to do experiments regarding fuel slosh behavior in zero G. He wasn't supposed to be on that flight--he had been bumped from his planned flight to give a US senator some orbit time for NASA PR. I feel bad not only for the Columbia crew and their families, but for the engineering team that did the initial analysis of the foam strike on the left wing tiles. Those guys and gals are taking the brunt of the recrimination now, even though it is likely that nothing could've been done even if they had concluded that the damage was too severe to attempt reentry. The design of this mission simply left them with no viable options for this contingency. I'm sure there will be some new flight rules out of this, but the survivors will be living with those decisions for the rest of their lives. A Living Hell if there ever was one. Oops. Didn't mean to darken the current tone of this thread. Maybe I should go post some Challenger jokes in Bernard's sick jokes thread... (Hey, it's a coping mechanism--we started hearing those jokes that afternoon.)  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 02-06-2003 10:48 AM                        A wire story in this morning's newspaper says NASA, after further testing, now believes it's EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that the foam piece that struck the wing could have triggered this event.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 02-06-2003 11:21 AM                    I wonder how they are testing this. Are they subjecting a shuttle wing and a piece of the same foam to the same stresses of a shuttle launch. I don't think so. They are probably using computer models that are just not the same as real life events. I wouldn't rule anything out at this time. I have not officialy scene a story with this context at this time. If there is such a story sounds like someone trying to cover their asses.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 02-06-2003 11:31 AM                        I found that story online: Foam Unlikely Cause  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 02-06-2003 11:44 AM                    Thanks, for that link David, I still think there may be some connection to that piece of foam. I mean look at the past shuttle flights that had pieces of foam hit the shuttle. In those cases some damage had occured. They better think hard on the case of the foam because once you rule that out you put nasa management into the failure to maintain safty issues on the shuttle it's self. That is the other high possability in the investigation. That has also been reenterated over the years.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 02-06-2003 12:54 PM                     Darryl, I fully agree  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-06-2003 01:32 PM                        Isn't the liquid fuel tank also often covered by ice that forms on the cold surface? (Which is why they need insulation). Ice IS really hard and heavy, and could cause damage.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-06-2003 03:05 PM                    I don't know how they can properly model for the way the adhesives hold the tile to the felt pad and the pads to the ship with any degree of accuracy. They may be correct that the insulation, even possibly being ice laden from the rain, might have only done minimal damage to the tiles. But I don't think they can rule out the idea that a couple of lost tiles could create such turbulance that it would work its way under the remaining tiles and cause a number of them to peel away, ultimately dooming the ship. Or was it the brittle rivets that Harland and Wolf used?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-06-2003 03:20 PM                     I too think it was the tank insulation piece that caused it. I also think that NASA knew fom the damage that they may not make it back after seeing the video footage. But kept it to themselves and just possibly the crew. The way that piece shatters with more apparent debris comming out from under the wing is all too obvious to anyone with 2 cents worth of knowledge. Take a baseball for instance. Weighs less lots less than the 2 lbs that insulation weighed, and pitchers can throw a ball as fast as about 85 to 90 mph. Take that 2 lb piece of insulation at Mach 2 and lets see how much damage it does.... BTW Steve, It wasn;t so much the rivits that were brittle, but the actual cast iron hull of the Titanic. And the freezing temperatures in the north Atlantic made the cast iron hull plates even more brittle. Mark  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 02-06-2003 04:36 PM                     I don't think NASA wants us to know....if you think about it, anything can be distorted enough to make anyone believe. Trouble is, NASA is on the hot seat right now, and if it was indeed a case of tile damage, they would have some very nasty egg smeared in their faces...  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 02-07-2003 02:20 AM                    I read in this mornings paper that they think it could have been a piece of space junk or a pebble size piece of debrit. The pebbles size debrit has hit the shuttles before. They have had to replace the windshields. I don't know about space junk though. I remember watching something on discovery or one of those type channels that talked about space junk and the fact that NASA knows where it is and they fly the shuttle in a certain pattern to avoid it. Sounds like they are trying to blow smoke away from the smoking gun so to speak.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.