There's a guy out there who thinks he has one. He claims that it wasn't tile damage that destroyed the vehicle, but what he thinks is proof that it entered sideways.

Without even bothering to examine his fuzzy pictures that supposedly constitute his "proof," I have to say, sorry, it doesn't hold any water. Even ignoring his implausible theories about sensor failures and software glitches, the entry g-loads are such that a sideways entry would be immediately noticed by the crew, as would the direction of the earth motion, particularly for an experienced crew (there were several veterans on this flight). The seats aren't designed to take loads in that direction at those levels. But the cockpit chatter indicates nothing abnormal until just shortly before breakup.

I don't buy into the theory that the shuttle was sideways at the start of re-entry.

The "Smoke Trail" noted looks more like a camera artifact than anything substantial.

Although, a friend of mine said he'd seen images on Fox that he'd not seen on any other news agency. He described seeing the tail break off as part of the final break-up in the footage. I never saw the images. Without a timestamp it's hard to tell, but these may be that portion of the footage, after control was lost.

How long has that website been up? Did it just get posted today? If so, then.....

If not, I can't imagine that, at the height the shuttle was at, a Fox News camera could have zoomed close enough to be able to actually make out enough detail to discern what direction the shuttle was facing when it entered.

The shuttle Columbia was in the last stages of re-entry when the film clip was taken. It wasn't much higher than airlines fly, and you can see their outlines with the naked eye. Look at the photos, and you can see the outline of the fusilage. Fox News obtained the film clip from some photographer filming the event on his on, so I have no idea how good his camera was. The camera zooms back out to a long shot about three seconds before the first big piece breaks away, so you can not tell if it was the tail.

My main point is, that the photos just don't jive with the official NASA investigation finding.

I thought your main point was that the Shuttle entered sideways (a point that doesn't jive with the obvious reality of the astronauts' experience).

Same thing. The photos make it clear that the shuttle was sideways (at least at that point in the re-entry). That doesn't match the official findings.

I can't imagine what the crew could tell or how busy they were in order to notice. I've never been on a shuttle during re-entry, so I don't know how much they were bounced around on a normal re-entry. Do you? Since a normal re-entry is at a nose-high attitude, I'm pretty sure that they couldn't see anything but sky out the front (either way).

If they were really as low in the atmosphere as you claim to be able to be photographed, they would have already been experiencing aerodynamic effects well before those photos were taken. Coming in sideways would have blown them apart a LOT earlier in their re-entry.

Also, regardless of where they were in their re-entry phase and what they could or couldn't see from the windows, the drag from entering the atmosphere would have been noticeable enough for the astronauts to feel themselves travelling sideways. Presumably the myriad sensors in the shuttle would have alerted them to that fact as well.

In the end, your claims don't hold any water. And this isn't even that elaborate or entertaining of an AFD joke, if that's the intent (as I mentioned earlier).

John's right. Re-entry involves deceleration. If the spacecraft is pointed forward, there is a feeling of being pushed forward as the ship slows down -- just like when you;re in your car and using the brakes.

If your car is moving sideways, though, and decelerates, you're going to be pushed to the side.

Be as closed minded as you want:
1. Re-entry started over the CA coastline, they had to lose altitude to be able to land in FL.
2. They were in a weightless state for the duration of their mission, so they were going from that state to gradually having weight, at the same time they were being buffeted around by the turbulence of re-entry.
3. They were in a nose-high attitude and would have had NO ground reference.
4. The photos show that they WERE moving sideways at a point 43 seconds before the breakup started.
5. I have no idea what the sensors aboard the shuttle can or can not tell the crew/control personnel about the actual attitude of the shuttle. Do you?
6. The only "claim" I'm making is that the photos show them sideways 43 seconds prior to break up. Anything else is conjecture. I am an imagery expert and a pilot, not a shuttle expert.

This is definitely not an AFD trick. Please prove me wrong; I'll sleep better...

Yaw was never extreme until the break up.

5. I have no idea what the sensors aboard the shuttle can or can not tell the crew/control personnel about the actual attitude of the shuttle. Do you?

Yes

Then explain the photo clip...

1. Re-entry started over the CA coastline, they had to lose altitude to be able to land in FL.

That's not in dispute

2. They were in a weightless state for the duration of their mission, so they were going from that state to gradually having weight, at the same time they were being buffeted around by the turbulence of re-entry.

Even so, I'd think trained astronauts could tell down from left. In 1967, the third X-15 reentered the atmosphere in a Mach 5 flat spin, due to flight control error. The pilot was able to regain control of the craft, and probably could have saved it if the RCS system not set up an oscillation he couldn't control. Now if that could be done in 1967, I'm sure NASA training would take it into account in 2003

3. They were in a nose-high attitude and would have had NO ground reference.

Again: flight instruments. Even a Cessna 172 has pitch, yaw and bank indicators, I'd think a billion dollar space plane has something a little better.

4. The photos show that they WERE moving sideways at a point 43 seconds before the breakup started.

No, you're claiming they show this. If you look at the pdf on your own site page 15, items 66&67, they show data from the time in question. Altitude is reported as 206,403 feet and speed is Mach 18.99. Any commercial, or even a professional-grade camera, that is trying to focus on something that high and fast is going to show some distortion. This is no different from the hundreds of "real" UFO photos that are nothing more than dust on the lens, focusing on a distant light, etc.

5. I have no idea what the sensors aboard the shuttle can or can not tell the crew/control personnel about the actual attitude of the shuttle. Do you?

All shuttles were to have a "glass cockpit" installed by 2002. A picture of one can be seen here: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-101/hires/s99_01418.jpg
and you can clearly see the indicators for the flight controls, as well as flight attitude.

6. The only "claim" I'm making is that the photos show them sideways 43 seconds prior to break up. Anything else is conjecture. I am an imagery expert and a pilot, not a shuttle expert.

I'm not any kind of expert, and in a few minutes I found enough information to refute your contention. We'll never know exactly what happened, but NASA's version of the accident fits what we do know. Your version does not.

Then explain the photo clip...

bad focus, bad optics, sensor bloom.

...43 seconds prior to break up...
position and attitude were approximately
Lat 33.4N Long. 100.4W
Alt: 204320 ft, 12,725.9
orbiter attitude was
-64 degrees roll
39 degrees alpha
1 degree beta

none of these were out of bounds

The image in the video looks like the camera is out of focus; there's no way the orbiter could be pointing directly away from the camera at that instant. The data from multiple sensors indicates the orbiter lost its left wing and then entered a spin.

Columbia conspiracy theories fall in the same category as the 9/11 conspiracies: if people actually picked up a physics book, they might not open their mouths and make fools of themselves.

What he might think is "flying sideways" might be the roll maneuvers that are done to burn off energy.

I wonder if this guy thinks that a plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11...

I think that our friend is not just on the border, but entering deep into "crank" territory. "Closed minded" is a dead giveaway.

Well, since all of you people who are so much smarter than I, have objectively looked at the photos and are convinced that it couldn't possibly be sideways, I'll bite my tongue and hope that you really are smarter...

I have to laugh at the images given as proof that the orbiter was sideways. The orbiter was so high up and moving so fast that there is no way a clear picture could have been taken showing the direction of the shuttle. I have no doubt the images are of the shuttle, but the supposed outline of the shuttle is nothing more than artifacts caused by extremely high zoom, an out of focus lens, a very bright object and an unsteady (or handheld) camera mount. If the picture was clear, I'm sure the actual image of the shuttle would just be a very bright spot covering a few pixels of the image.

> I'm sure the actual image of the shuttle would
> just be a very bright spot covering a few pixels
> of the image.

If the camera were directly under the orbiter viewing it planform it would have subtended 2 arc-minutes lengthwise and 1.3 arc-minutes spanwise. Since the camera was some distance away the actual visual size was smaller. The extreme magnification coupled with the less than optimal optics can explain the rest.

Remember, the Astronauts were pulling three G's.

I can damn sure tell the difference between three G's sideways and downwards. I think trained Astronauts could too.

Not to mention NASA had full telemetry data prior to break-up. I am sure they had Inertial Measurement Units that also provided reference for the computers regarding their vector of travel.

The original web page now redirects back to this post. April Fool's for someone...