Next Shuttle Mission to Have Video Camera on External Tank

[haywood]

The article states that...<br /><br />The camera on next year's mission will be positioned on the opposite side of the tank, away from the shuttle, Otte said, so the vessel's exhaust will not smear the lens when the tank detaches.<br /><br />Maybe I'm missing something here but how will a camera located on the opposite side of the ET from the Shuttle be able to take video of the bottom of the Shuttle?<br /><br />

 

[blacknebula]

Do you have a link to the article?

 

[radarredux]

Associated Press story available at SDC:<br /><br />http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/shuttle_camera_040813.html<br /><br />Here is another story:<br />http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996284&lpos=home1<br />

 

[thinice]

Why do you think this camera is for taking video of the shuttle? They just want to see how much foam fly off the ET.

 

[mikejz]

Humm...They put the camera on the other side of the tank, so that they can't actually see if the foam does any damage to the shuttle???!!! Makes more sence to devise a little wiper that will clean the lens...

 

[haywood]

Thanks SG.<br />I remember watching that launch and seeing the lens get all fouled up when the solids jettisonned.<br />Thank you for clearing up the article about the new cam.<br />Will they be taking any special precautions to ensure this one won't get clouded by the SRB jettison?<br />

 

[najab]

><i>Will they be taking any special precautions to ensure this one won't get clouded by the SRB jettison? </i><p>Well I would imagine that mounting it lower on the tank (ie out of the SRB sep motors' plume) will do a lot to help! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /></p>

 

[najab]

><i>However with all of the testing they figured out that nothing bigger then a hockey puck of foam ( or so ) can hit the RCC without shattering the RCC.</i><p>I missed that. Where did you see that hockey puck data?</p>

 

[najab]

You'll have to tell me since I've never played ice hockey, but a hamburger <b>bun</b> is bigger than a hockey puck, no?

 

[flynn]

More on this and other External tank changes from New Scientist.<br /><br />http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996284&lpos=home3 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>

 

[najab]

I can only speak on my own behald, but I find that it is disingenuous at best for you to morph the article's: "<i>a piece of the lightweight foam as small as a hamburger bun can bring down one of the mighty space shuttles</i>" to your post: "<i>nothing bigger then a hockey puck of foam ( or so ) can hit the RCC without shattering the RCC</i>."<p>They said that in their testing a hamburger-bun sized piece of foam is the <b>smallest that can possibly</b> damage the RCC as opposed to your claim that a piece of foam that size or larger guarantees the destruction of the RCC. In fact, during the CAIB tests they found that pieces as large as that which broke off from the bipod attachment area on STS-107 could hit the RCC without causing damage, it all depends on a number of variables.</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

It's worth pointing out that a hockey-puck sized piece of foam (I'm a Minnesotan, so I'll go with that analogy <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> ) can only <i>theoretically</i> bring down a Shuttle. It's the smallest piece that can conceivably do enough damage, based on the extensive analyses that were done in the wake of the Columbia tragedy. It still has to hit in exactly the right place at exactly the right speed. So it becomes a question of whether or not the probability is acceptably low. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

The problem isn't with the SDC article, it is with your use of the information. Let's use an analogy.<p>You take your car to the mechanic because it's not working right. The mechanic works on it and says: "I don't have the part you need, but I've fixed it temporarily. I can guarantee that if you stay below 40mph it will work okay. Over that and it might break down." You then drive home and tell your spouse (assuming you're married): "You can drive the car, but if you go over 40mph it will break down."<p>Now, your statement and the mechanic's both contain the same information - that 40mph is the limit of guaranteed safety. However your statement implies that instant failure is certain once 40mph is exceeded. The mechanic's statement implies that the failure point is unknown, but it is definitely over 40mph.<p>The same is true with the article. It says that "...a piece of the lightweight foam as small as a hamburger bun <i>can</i> bring down..." The word "can" in this sentence is synonymous with "might", so we can rewrite it "A hit from a piece of foam the size of a hamburger bun might bring down..." Your statement, on the other hand, said that "<i>nothing bigger then a hockey puck</i> of foam ( or so ) can hit the RCC without <i>shattering</i> the RCC." The "nothing bigger than" provides an absolute limit on the size, so we can rewrite it as "A hit from a piece of foam any larger than a hamburger bun <i>will</i>....shatter the RCC." These two statements are <b>not</b> the same. Also, the article said nothing about shattering the RCC.<p>In actual fact, your statement is provably false: during the CAIB investigation, they shot pieces of foam at the RCC and in most of the tests - which involved suitacase sized pieces of foam - the RCC was undamaged. What they found was that for most impact scenario the RCC performed as expected. However, for some combinations of impact velocity and angle, the RCC performed as you had said it would, and it suffered brittle fracture.</p></p></p></p>

 

[najab]

><i>They said something I reported it accurately and a little colorfully...</i><p>No you did not. You completely changed the meaning of what was said.<p>><i> Well we can both heat up water pretty fast with our IQ's.</i><p>It's not about IQ's. I'm reasonably confident that yours is higher than mine.<p>><i>The article says one thing and you are trying to spin it.</i><p>No, you have spinned it. I didn't even know about the article until you brought it up.<p>><i>The article has no spin in it. The article says what it says. </i><p>Agreed 100%<p>><i>Now is it the lower limit of a theoretical hit, I would think so. That does not make the statement false. The statement remains true...</i><p>No it does not. You stated that something larger than a hockey puck <b>will always</b> totally destroy an RCC panel. The article did not say that.<p>><i>So get over yourselves.</i><p>I am quite 'over myself', if you cannot see the difference between the two statements, that's not my problem.</p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p>

 

[haywood]

Najab wins in a knockout!<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

All right, folks, I think you've both made your points. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> To summarize:<br /><br />najaB: a hockey-puck-sized piece of foam isn't guaranteed to destroy the Shuttle, and in fact, probably won't. But it is conceivable.<br /><br />1207: there is risk that a hockey-puck-sized piece of foam could bring down the Shuttle, so we must assume for the sake of safety that all hockey-puck-sized pieces of foam are potentially lethal and should be avoided at all costs.<br /><br />Think we can leave it there and move on with the discussion? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

Shouldn't there have been a video from the External Tank showing the pieces falling off? At one point I was thinking that the pieces fell of because of the camera.

 

[najab]

You mean on STS-107? There was not tank camera on that mission. There has only been one 'Shuttlecam' so far, I forget the mission - STS-112 comes to mind.

 

[drwayne]

Those will be up to somewhere in the 55 - 60 KFt altitude range, right?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I did very much enjoy the tankcam on STS-112 Atlantis.

 

[elguapoguano]

You know, I always wondered why we didn't have better video of the shuttle's climb to orbit. It's no wonder that the CNN coverage only lasted a little after SRB sep, or about 2 minutes into the launch. If you could see it all the way to orbit, the public would have more eye candy, ala Hubble. Eye candy equals public appeal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Is the new shuttle cam just a stright foward NTSC rez system?

 

[nacnud]

The cameras on F1 cars have what appears to be a layer of clear film over them, if a fly or oil etc gets on the film and spoils the view the film is rolled to one side and fresh clear film is moved over the lens. I think it’s a bit like the rolls of clear plastic that are used on over head projectors where you use a bit and roll it on etc.<br /><br />I would have thought that this would be relatively simple to add to the rocket cameras and was surprised when the footage from STS-112 showed that such a system was not present.<br /><br />

 

[najab]

Remember the ET goes all the way to orbit. Every ounce added to the ET cam system is an ounce carried to orbit (and at current rates costs about $625!) If they had realised the camera was in danger of being fogged they would have put it in another location, rather than adding extra weight.

 

[nacnud]

Yeah true, but still the footage is now more important to the safety of the orbiter the addition of such a small system wouldn't cause that much difficulty, I doubt that it would weigh more than a single 35mm film or an extra cup of coffee at breakfast for one of the astronauts <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Perhaps the environmental conditions experienced preclude such a system.