China junk duck and cover 43N to 43 S
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RH picture looks like many of the bolides/meteors I've seen including the glowing wake.
The LH picture has a glowing wake leading up to what appears to be a shot of a major breakup of the spacecraft, with items that have already detached following alongside in the wake. Probably a cherry picked photo from a stream of shots.
Keep in mind that this is all occurring in a near vacuum and at tremendous (near-orbital) speeds. Any rupture of a water/waste tank, for example, would create a glowing cloud under such conditions.
Anyone who has done a lot of night flying has probably seen several bolides during the course of their careers.
The LH picture has a glowing wake leading up to what appears to be a shot of a major breakup of the spacecraft, with items that have already detached following alongside in the wake. Probably a cherry picked photo from a stream of shots.
Keep in mind that this is all occurring in a near vacuum and at tremendous (near-orbital) speeds. Any rupture of a water/waste tank, for example, would create a glowing cloud under such conditions.
Anyone who has done a lot of night flying has probably seen several bolides during the course of their careers.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There is a lot of questionable imagery posted online these days e.g.
:
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Machinbird:
The first reference I find to that image is from 16 hours ago:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TiangongAlert&src=hash
It was posted by user "Fake Astropix".
He describes himself as:
I've seen pictures of the re-entry taken from the ground-reported to be from South America. Report is that the space station bounced off the atmosphere and made it to the Atlantic.
If true, I guess it just loved to fly, and shows that you can't always trust official sources.
The first reference I find to that image is from 16 hours ago:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TiangongAlert&src=hash
It was posted by user "Fake Astropix".
He describes himself as:
Fake, misidentified & uncredited astro images! We follow cool astro types! Favourited is not endorsed! Moon landing hoax denialists & unpaid NASA shills.
I've seen pictures of the re-entry taken from the ground-reported to be from South America. Report is that the space station bounced off the atmosphere and made it to the Atlantic.
If true, I guess it just loved to fly, and shows that you can't always trust official sources.
Machin bird, yes the RH pic does look like a bolide of which I too have seen many and that looks nothing like the rentry of a spacecraft.
The largest spacecraft I have seen renter live is the Hayabusa probe 8 years ago. Admittedly smaller than the space station at hand but it certainly didn’t look like the explosion on the LH pic. I agree you’re talking huge speeds for the craft and that the laminar flame (propagation) speed is higher at altitude, but why is the flammable material ahead of the body? From what I have seen, the burning /vapourising substance usually trails behind the object, and doesn’t have that yellow hydrocarbon colour.
What is the source of the images?
Edit - just seen the above post that went up when I was typing this one. That would seem to answer that then.
The largest spacecraft I have seen renter live is the Hayabusa probe 8 years ago. Admittedly smaller than the space station at hand but it certainly didn’t look like the explosion on the LH pic. I agree you’re talking huge speeds for the craft and that the laminar flame (propagation) speed is higher at altitude, but why is the flammable material ahead of the body? From what I have seen, the burning /vapourising substance usually trails behind the object, and doesn’t have that yellow hydrocarbon colour.
What is the source of the images?
Edit - just seen the above post that went up when I was typing this one. That would seem to answer that then.
Last edited by compressor stall; 2nd Apr 2018 at 16:29. Reason: Comment about post above.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that F/A18 in the F-14 on Ark Royal pic had gone through a space/time continuoum (spelling) to land on the Ark Royal. Didn't the Ark Royal have an armoured flight deck? I remember that US carriers with their wooden flight decks lit up like torches when a kamikaze struck but for the British it was sweepers man your brooms.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.Scott
Your detective work is more credible than those pictures I posted.
Did you use the wayback machine or one of the twitter features to trace the pictures back to the original posting?
Thanks for clearing up the misinformation I seem to have passed on.
Your detective work is more credible than those pictures I posted.
Did you use the wayback machine or one of the twitter features to trace the pictures back to the original posting?
Thanks for clearing up the misinformation I seem to have passed on.
According to Wikipedia, an Ark Royal was sunk in 1941. Unlike some other British carriers, it did not have an armored flight deck (probably wouldn't have stopped the torpedo that sank it, anyway). The next to bear the name was commissioned in 1950.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did a Google search on that cryptic image name.
For a documentary on carrier based aircraft flying in different times, one may find this illuminating.
Insofar as space junk is concerned, how close did any of the predictions come to the actual splashdown point in the Pacific?
Insofar as space junk is concerned, how close did any of the predictions come to the actual splashdown point in the Pacific?
For a documentary on carrier based aircraft flying in different times, one may find this illuminating.
Insofar as space junk is concerned, how close did any of the predictions come to the actual splashdown point in the Pacific?
Insofar as space junk is concerned, how close did any of the predictions come to the actual splashdown point in the Pacific?
Lone wolf, I was following Aerospace.org which had predictions from the Europeans (I think).
Anyway IIRC 12 hours out they were predicting reentry at 0016 +/- 90mins (which is a whole orbit !) and in the Easter island area. They were 2 mins out and ~3000nm out.
Anyway IIRC 12 hours out they were predicting reentry at 0016 +/- 90mins (which is a whole orbit !) and in the Easter island area. They were 2 mins out and ~3000nm out.
