Robert Seeberger wrote:
Except that once the wing is lost, the aircraft probably begins to tumble exposing surfaces not designed for thermal or mechanical stress.----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 3:02 PM Subject: RE: Shuttle Debris Trail----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...Thats what I am thinking. Even the Challenger explosion left large sections of airframe intact. I'm really interested in hearing the explainations behind the totalityofColumbias destruction.The speed and altitude of today's crash were much, much higher than Challenger, I believe (not sure of the speed of Challenger, anybody got it?). A lot of high-speed, high-altitude breakups leave only very small pieces. Look at the weird stuff that happens in tornados and it becomes more obvious that at extreme wind speeds, things become rather unpredictable. At least that's what I think.You are the second to posit that explanation, but I dont think it is very good actually. There are literally thousands of pieces on the ground only some of which have that burnt/scorched look. It looks to me as if there was a significant explosion during the descent that broke the ship into pieces. The shuttle is designed to withstand the stresses of reentry. I would expect the airframe to withstand most damage even after losing a wing. Remember that the wings are behind the center of the shuttle. Most of the damage would be concentrated aft, and the forward sections would still be protected by heat tiles. I expect that larger sections of the airframe should have come down. That not a single section larger than 1 meter has survived suggests a greater catastrophe than air friction can explain.
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
