STS-107 Report #19 Saturday, February 1, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. CST Mission Control Center, Houston, Texas
In a briefing, Chief Flight Director Milt Heflin said that around 7:53 a.m. CST, just minutes before communications were lost with Columbia, flight controllers detected indications of a loss of hydraulic system temperature measurements associated with Columbia's left wing, followed three minutes later by an increase in temperatures on the left main gear tires and brakes. At 7:58 a.m., flight controllers noted a loss of bondline temperature sensor data in the area of the left wing followed a minute later by a loss of data on tire temperatures and pressures for the left inboard and outboard tires.
It looks like the white flare several of us saw and Tom and I got pictures of corresponds with the "increase in temperatures on the left main gear tires and brakes". Patrick
Patrick When you wake up - sometime next week, I have a question. I watched you as you set up your camera at Leeds prior to the Columbia fly-over. You first set the f-stop dile to f2.8. Then you audibly made the remark something like "I will go up one stop to reduce flairing". Subsequently you set f-stop up one notch. I set my camera to f2.8 and I don't know what Marty's was set at that you posted at http://planet.state.ut.us . When I blow my picture up of the flair-out I see a bright light start from the left side of the contrail, immideatly cross over to the right side and continue there in a stright line for a bit then blend back into the main contrail. My question is do you think that this was an artifact of my f2.8 f-stop that you avoided? Jim --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Hi, first, a minor correction. I started at f/1.2 and the change you saw me make was to f/2.0. The flaring I was referring to might more properly be referred to as coma, something that occurs mostly (you experts out there correct me if necessary) around the edges of the field. In astrophotos this makes the stars on the edge look like little comets. I made the change in f/stop since I thought I might pick out a star or two near the edge. I don't think the stuff you are seeing on your pictures is caused by coma. Patrick Jim Gibson wrote:
I watched you as you set up your camera at Leeds prior to the Columbia fly-over. You first set the f-stop dile to f2.8. Then you audibly made the remark something like "I will go up one stop to reduce flairing". Subsequently you set f-stop up one notch.
I set my camera to f2.8 and I don't know what Marty's was set at that you posted at http://planet.state.ut.us . When I blow my picture up of the flair-out I see a bright light start from the left side of the contrail, immideatly cross over to the right side and continue there in a stright line for a bit then blend back into the main contrail. My question is do you think that this was an artifact of my f2.8 f-stop that you avoided?/
I believe there is a difference between lens flare and coma. Lens flare is caused by internal reflections in the optics, while coma is an artifact of spherical aberration. The errors on the outer portions of a camera image are not always coma, but may be caused by other abberations as well. I agree, the flare Jim recorded is not an artifact of the optics. I believe he caught some of the initial failures of the orbiter. As I mentioned before, the time line indicates the problems began before we saw Columbia, and continued while it was overhead our location. Brent --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
Hi,
first, a minor correction. I started at f/1.2 and the change you saw me make was to f/2.0.
The flaring I was referring to might more properly be referred to as coma, something that occurs mostly (you experts out there correct me if necessary) around the edges of the field. In astrophotos this makes the stars on the edge look like little comets. I made the change in f/stop since I thought I might pick out a star or two near the edge.
I don't think the stuff you are seeing on your pictures is caused by coma.
Patrick
Jim Gibson wrote:
I watched you as you set up your camera at Leeds
prior to the Columbia
fly-over. You first set the f-stop dile to f2.8. Then you audibly made the remark something like "I will go up one stop to reduce flairing". Subsequently you set f-stop up one notch.
I set my camera to f2.8 and I don't know what Marty's was set at that you posted at http://planet.state.ut.us . When I blow my picture up of the flair-out I see a bright light start from the left side of the contrail, immideatly cross over to the right side and continue there in a stright line for a bit then blend back into the main contrail. My question is do you think that this was an artifact of my f2.8 f-stop that you avoided?/
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Going over the various objective-eyepiece combination spot diagrams in "Telescope Optics" (Rutten & van Venrooij), it seems that the Nagler gets pretty darn good as f-ratio increases. At f/15 it's almost perfect, even very far off-axis. An f/8 APO yeilds extremely tight spots also. It would be interesting to try the Naglers in long-focus Maks & refractors. I've only ever used them in fast Dobs, where the diagrams and my own experience show the performance to be much worse than a good ortho. This makes sense; long-focus instruments tend to have a much larger well-corrected prime focus, a condition which complements the Nagler's wide-field perfectly. A fast Dob, really anything faster than about f/7 or f/8 in this case, is presenting the eyepiece with a horribly curved field off-axis, in comparison. I like the approach of the Rutten & van Venrooij book, that is, that eyepiece properties should be chosen to complement objective properties. Abberations can cancel each other out quite effectively. It also shows that there can be no "perfect" eyepiece for all telescope types and f/ratios. C. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
My 12.5 is not a fast dob. It is f7.5. The Nagler did not perform as well as the orthoscopics did - there was no question about that. The image was sharper and more contrasty. My problem with Naglers on the 10"f10 is one of internal reflections. I have not tried the orthos on that scope yet. Since I got my Naglers the orhtos have gatheres a bunch of dust. That will change. Brent --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
Going over the various objective-eyepiece combination spot diagrams in "Telescope Optics" (Rutten & van Venrooij), it seems that the Nagler gets pretty darn good as f-ratio increases. At f/15 it's almost perfect, even very far off-axis. An f/8 APO yeilds extremely tight spots also.
It would be interesting to try the Naglers in long-focus Maks & refractors. I've only ever used them in fast Dobs, where the diagrams and my own experience show the performance to be much worse than a good ortho.
This makes sense; long-focus instruments tend to have a much larger well-corrected prime focus, a condition which complements the Nagler's wide-field perfectly.
A fast Dob, really anything faster than about f/7 or f/8 in this case, is presenting the eyepiece with a horribly curved field off-axis, in comparison.
I like the approach of the Rutten & van Venrooij book, that is, that eyepiece properties should be chosen to complement objective properties. Abberations can cancel each other out quite effectively. It also shows that there can be no "perfect" eyepiece for all telescope types and f/ratios.
C.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Isn't the TeleVue refractor line in the f/7 range? It makes sense that TV eyepieces would complement TV refractors. Brent, what do you think the Naglers would do on the Clark or other large, long doublet? I think the programs that plot spot diagrams do so for only one wavelength, don't they? I admire you're use of slower objectives. We're on the same page here for sure. While it doesn't have the resolution of my 10" f/5.6, my 6" f/8 is much more contrasty...much less diffraction, almost a "cleaner" image...does that make sense? C. --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
My 12.5 is not a fast dob. It is f7.5. My problem with Naglers on the 10"f10 is one of internal reflections.
Since I got my Naglers the orhtos have gatheres a bunch of dust. That will change.
Brent
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Chuck, I have used the Naglers on my 8" doublet refractor (f13.3). I have also used the orhtos. I have never compared the two. I'll do that. Your 10" is more sensitive to collimation errors. The quarter wave circle for your 10" is only 1/8 inch in diameter, while your 6" quarter wave circle is .358". This means that the six inch has a quarter wave field of almost 26 minutes of arc. The 10" quarter wave field is only 7.5 minutes of arc. This is probably a part of what you are seeing. The 10" has to be aligned much better to see the smaller sweet spot. Brent --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
Isn't the TeleVue refractor line in the f/7 range? It makes sense that TV eyepieces would complement TV refractors.
Brent, what do you think the Naglers would do on the Clark or other large, long doublet? I think the programs that plot spot diagrams do so for only one wavelength, don't they?
I admire you're use of slower objectives. We're on the same page here for sure. While it doesn't have the resolution of my 10" f/5.6, my 6" f/8 is much more contrasty...much less diffraction, almost a "cleaner" image...does that make sense?
C.
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
My 12.5 is not a fast dob. It is f7.5. My problem with Naglers on the 10"f10 is one of internal reflections.
Since I got my Naglers the orhtos have gatheres a bunch of dust. That will change.
Brent
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
Chuck,
I have used the Naglers on my 8" doublet refractor (f13.3). I have also used the orhtos. I have never compared the two. I'll do that.
Your 10" is more sensitive to collimation errors. The quarter wave circle for your 10" is only 1/8 inch in diameter, while your 6" quarter wave circle is .358". This means that the six inch has a quarter wave field of almost 26 minutes of arc. The 10" quarter wave field is only 7.5 minutes of arc. This is probably a part of what you are seeing. The 10" has to be aligned much better to see the smaller sweet spot.
I'm aware of that, and also the perils of mis-collimation. I think that diagonal obstruction is more of a culprit in this case- the 10" uses a 2.6" (originally set-up for massive "IN" travel when built, to accomodate various cameras), while the 6" uses only a 1" diagonal. The 6" is also baffled more effectively. C. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Patrick Would you mind adding the enlarged photo to your web so otheres can see what we are talking about? I have studied the photo for a while. Keeping in mind that my shutter was open for 8 seconds, that would correspond to the bright pink contrail. The gray contrail before that would have occured before the shutter was opened. I would intrupret the first jiggle in the pink contrail as my hand touching off photo. Then I see the the pink contrail stabalizing of a short time indicated by its straightness. Then I see a new bright pink line appear on the right side of the photo corresponding to the shuttles left side and immediately crossing over to the opposite side. The original contrail remains relatively stable while the new trail is pronounsly serpintine. That to me says that the camera was not jiggling because original contrail remains straight. I would ask for insight form all who wish to express it. I am most intrested in an accurate interpretation of the photo, and Patrick, yours my well be the correct one. What do otheres think. If it's nothing, its nothing. I had thought that the second pink line might be a blast form the course adjustment rocket, but on closer inspection I don't think we could see blue sky between the two contrails if it were and the shuttles course was not altered that I could tell. Jim Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote: As with my answer to your other post, I invite others to correct me if necessary, but I'm pretty sure the multiple tracks and "flares" in your image were caused by the camera being moved while the shuttle was open. Patrick Jim Gibson wrote:
Attached is the enlarged section of the flair-out. I think the first giggle is me touching off the camera. The contrail Then stabilizes. Subsequently a flair-out begins on the right side and moves immideatly to the left side of the contrail. I read your post about the timing of the event that may coincide with the heating of the tires. I can not discount the possibility of a jet blast corresponding to a course correction. Of course, I am no expert in these things.t
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Jim Gibson wrote:
Would you mind adding the enlarged photo to your web so otheres can see what we are talking about? Ok.
Are you also going to send the image to NASA (see below)? Patrick NASA ASKS FOR HELP WITH COLUMBIA INVESTIGATION NASA has established a telephone hotline and electronic mail address for the public to use for reporting information that may help investigators studying today's Space Shuttle mishap. 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 Text reports and images should be e-mailed to: nasamitimages@jsc.nasa.gov The e-mail address is: columbiaimages@nasa.gov All debris is U.S. Government property and is critical to the investigation of the mishap. All debris from the accident is to be left alone and reported to Government authorities. Unauthorized persons found in possession of accident debris will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. -end-
Patrick Yes I was able to send the pictures from the information you provided in you web site. Since this is private let me say that I am personally greatful for all the effort you have put into providing valuable information throughout this whole expierence. I was glad that my wife and grandson, and otheres could not only be in the right place and see the orbiter pass over but I enjoyed associating with the otheres as well. Your enthusiasum is contageous. It even carrys over well on TV and you are very knowledgabel in so many aspects. OK enough gushing - anyway thanks Jim Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote: Are you also going to send the image to NASA (see below)? Patrick --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Oops! I apologize. I thought I was posting to paw@trilobyte.net Jim Gibson <xajax99@yahoo.com> wrote: Patrick Yes I was able to send the pictures from the information you provided in you web site. Since this is private let me say that I am personally greatful for all the effort you have put into providing valuable information throughout this whole expierence. I was glad that my wife and grandson, and otheres could not only be in the right place and see the orbiter pass over but I enjoyed associating with the otheres as well. Your enthusiasum is contageous. It even carrys over well on TV and you are very knowledgabel in so many aspects. OK enough gushing - anyway thanks Jim Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote: Are you also going to send the image to NASA (see below)? Patrick --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Patrick, Diane and I have been saying also how grateful we are that we got connected with you for this event. Thank you. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-admin@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-admin@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jim Gibson Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:42 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: White flare Patrick Yes I was able to send the pictures from the information you provided in you web site. Since this is private let me say that I am personally greatful for all the effort you have put into providing valuable information throughout this whole expierence. I was glad that my wife and grandson, and otheres could not only be in the right place and see the orbiter pass over but I enjoyed associating with the otheres as well. Your enthusiasum is contageous. It even carrys over well on TV and you are very knowledgabel in so many aspects. OK enough gushing - anyway thanks Jim Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote: Are you also going to send the image to NASA (see below)? Patrick _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http:/mailplus.yahoo.com> Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http:/mailplus.yahoo.com>
Now that I've rested and have written my stories (including one today about Jim's photo), this is a chance to say how much I too appreciate Patrick's unflagging help and knowledge. He is a gem. Without his informing us and keeping us posted, I would not have had this literally unforgettable experience. It was a terrible tragedy, but it would have been anyway, if we had stayed home. Also I am very grateful to the OAS people who took me under their wing and all the others who contributed comments and photos. We were eyewitnesses to history. Best wishes, Joe Joe Bauman science & military reporter Deseret News bau@desnews.com (801) 237-2169
Hi Jim, I would like to do a story about that dramatic photo. Could you please give me a number where I can reach you about 7:15 a.m. tomorrow? Thanks very much, Joe
Jim, Your image is not a result of a moving camera. It is a result of a moving object. I am certain you caught some kind of object, whether plasma or solid or whatever, in the vecinity of the orbiter. That is the reason I asked for an unaltered version. Brent --- Jim Gibson <xajax99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Patrick Would you mind adding the enlarged photo to your web so otheres can see what we are talking about? I have studied the photo for a while. Keeping in mind that my shutter was open for 8 seconds, that would correspond to the bright pink contrail. The gray contrail before that would have occured before the shutter was opened. I would intrupret the first jiggle in the pink contrail as my hand touching off photo. Then I see the the pink contrail stabalizing of a short time indicated by its straightness. Then I see a new bright pink line appear on the right side of the photo corresponding to the shuttles left side and immediately crossing over to the opposite side. The original contrail remains relatively stable while the new trail is pronounsly serpintine. That to me says that the camera was not jiggling because original contrail remains straight. I would ask for insight form all who wish to express it. I am most intrested in an accurate interpretation of the photo, and Patrick, yours my well be the correct one. What do otheres think. If it's nothing, its nothing. I had thought that the second pink line might be a blast form the course adjustment rocket, but on closer inspection I don't think we could see blue sky between the two contrails if it were and the shuttles course was not altered that I could tell. Jim
Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote: As with my answer to your other post, I invite others to correct me if necessary, but I'm pretty sure the multiple tracks and "flares" in your image were caused by the camera being moved while the shuttle was open.
Patrick
Jim Gibson wrote:
Attached is the enlarged section of the flair-out.
I think the first giggle
is me touching off the camera. The contrail Then stabilizes. Subsequently a flair-out begins on the right side and moves immideatly to the left side of the contrail. I read your post about the timing of the event that may coincide with the heating of the tires. I can not discount the possibility of a jet blast corresponding to a course correction. Of course, I am no expert in these things.t
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
participants (6)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
Jim Gibson -
Joe Bauman -
Patrick Wiggins -
Wayne Reese