Regrettably, it now seems that the lo-res picture that has triggered so much debate in recent days
really is all they took at Kirtland on that fateful morning - with a 3˝" telescope and an "
old" computer . . "
in their free-time." Evidently, the precision elements of Starfire were not employed nor, indeed, requested. No comment.
Just to consolidate some of the plethora of references on this thread (
please note download size before clicking!) here are links to the
pdf (Acrobat) docs referred to - the big ones are for seriously interested folks only! (Shift+Left Click to view in a separate window) :
The emails mentioned by
rehkram can be found
here (192kb).
The original Paté-Cornell/Fishbeck paper -
1990 (4.8mb).
The later Paté-Cornell/Fishbeck paper -
1994 (2.9mb).
Ms Paté-Cornell has been reported as saying that she agrees with Ron Dittemore's remark about a "missing link" at an earlier briefing following the accident. It is also now being suggested that one sensor indicated "improper" left gear deployment, just before breakup, although two other sensors did not. Gear extension at that speed, if so, would undoubtedly be catastrophic and does not, in my personal opinion
only, explain the progressive drag increase observed prior to the main event.
Below is a diagram of the left wing structure, which I hope helps to visualise the layout and what it all looks like under the Thermal Protection System (TPS). Note the short distance between the LE and the wheel well, around the point where the wing-sweep changes.
Enlargement .
This is taken from the earlier Ko-Fields Report Oct
1987 (1.3mb)
I remain inclined to believe that there may have been (also) a RCC LE panel contributing to the scenario. This would indeed be a formidable
missing link.
Picky's link of Columbia's LE (Page 10) clearly shows the grey RCC panels for those unfamiliar with the subject. Likewise, the video appears to show two
separate pieces of debris falll from the ET at the 81-sec point during launch ---- two bits = two possible damage sites.