Drudge's Headline: COLUMBIA CREW SURVIVED MINUTE LONGER THAN PREVIOUSLY INDICATED, SAY INVESTIGATORS...

[cndc]

but the link is self-referencing.

Elizabeth

[cndc]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/16/national/nationalspecial/16SHUT.html?ex=1058932800&en=7512384f537281e1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to \s\]

On 15 Jul 2003 21:35:06 -0500, cndc >
wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/16/national/nationalspecial/16SHUT.html?ex=1058932800&en=7512384f537281e1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Why is this news? It's been known for months and published in NASA's own
timeline. The latest version they have is Rev 15 from March, but even it shows
these things (with the exeption of the OEX data, which was learned later):

07:59:28 CST Husband says "Roger, uh, b--"
07:59:32 CST loss of signal, data still downlinked to White Sands
but not passed to JSC due to corrupt data for 5 more sec
07:59:34 CST Master Alarm in cockpit due to FCS channel 4 failure
07:59:46 CST "Roll Ref" message on board, rapid change in L/D ratio
07:59:52 CST LRCS leak message
08:00:02 CST LRCS leak message
08:00:03 CST start of 2-second "window" of data, indicating loss of hyd
systems, LRCS/LOMS problems, left elevon problems, electrical
bus shorts (all of which cause alarms in the cabin)
08:00:05 CST last recorded frame of data
08:00:19 CST last recorded time tag on the OEX (which would stop recording
when power is removed)
08:00:21 CST onset of main body breakup

The scariest part of this timeline is from about 07:59:30 to 08:00:00 - just 30
seconds, but that's when all hell broke loose.

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to \"s\"" >
wrote in :

> On 15 Jul 2003 21:35:06 -0500, cndc
> > wrote:
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/16/national/nationalspecial/16SHUT.html?
>>ex=1058932800&en=7512384f537281e1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
>
> Why is this news? It's been known for months and published in NASA's
> own timeline.

Worse, we are already seeing the media "morph" this story. The NY Times
story was "crew was alive almost one minute after loss of signal" which,
while hardly news, was at least accurate, while Drudge's headline was "crew
was alive one minute after previously indicated", which is an outright lie.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Chris]

"Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s"" > wrote
in message ...

> The scariest part of this timeline is from about 07:59:30 to 08:00:00 -
just 30
> seconds, but that's when all hell broke loose.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't that first loss of signal at 07:59:32 caused
by the sudden left yaw when the RCS lost the battle to keep the shuttle
pointed in the direction flight? Wouldn't the crew be knocked unconscious
by such a violent movement? I assume the axis of rotation was somewhere
behind the cockpit, so the crew would have been thrown forward into their
restraints. I hate to say it but, if they didn't black out from the G force
of that yaw, I think their necks were snapped by the momentum of their
helmets moving forward.

The NASA data shows that the crew compartment survived at least another
minute. It shows that the computers survived another minute. I still think
the crew died instantly - and painlessly. They never knew what hit them.

[cndc]

> 07:59:28 CST Husband says "Roger, uh, b--"
> 07:59:32 CST loss of signal, data still downlinked to White Sands
> but not passed to JSC due to corrupt data for 5 more sec
> 07:59:34 CST Master Alarm in cockpit due to FCS channel 4 failure
> 07:59:46 CST "Roll Ref" message on board, rapid change in L/D ratio
> 07:59:52 CST LRCS leak message
> 08:00:02 CST LRCS leak message
> 08:00:03 CST start of 2-second "window" of data, indicating loss of hyd
> systems, LRCS/LOMS problems, left elevon problems, electrical
> bus shorts (all of which cause alarms in the cabin)
> 08:00:05 CST last recorded frame of data
> 08:00:19 CST last recorded time tag on the OEX (which would stop recording
> when power is removed)
> 08:00:21 CST onset of main body breakup

8:00:24 CST Last message from orbiter, "We are bouncing" or something
like that.

Elizabeth

[Doug...]

In article >, says...
>
> "Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s"" > wrote
> in message ...
>
> > The scariest part of this timeline is from about 07:59:30 to 08:00:00 -
> just 30
> > seconds, but that's when all hell broke loose.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't that first loss of signal at 07:59:32 caused
> by the sudden left yaw when the RCS lost the battle to keep the shuttle
> pointed in the direction flight? Wouldn't the crew be knocked unconscious
> by such a violent movement? I assume the axis of rotation was somewhere
> behind the cockpit, so the crew would have been thrown forward into their
> restraints. I hate to say it but, if they didn't black out from the G force
> of that yaw, I think their necks were snapped by the momentum of their
> helmets moving forward.

I don't think, from what I've read, that this is an accurate depiction of
either the reason for the comm dropout at 07:59:32 or the speed of the
yaw maneuver.

My memory is that the initial comm dropout was legitimately ratty comm
off the tail -- the vertical stabilizer came between the antenna and the
TDRSS through which comm was being relayed. While the data at that point
indicated that the orbiter was *losing* the battle to maintain attitude,
it had not yet lost control authority. Even when comm was restored for
two seconds after a 25-second gap (plus five seconds of degraded data at
the beginning of the dropout), and the orbiter was reported in an
"uncommanded attitude," nothing suggests that it had yawed so quickly as
to break necks within the crew compartment.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Chris]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:24:09 -0500, "Chris" > wrote:
> >the crew died instantly - and painlessly. They never knew what hit them.
>
> ...And to be totally honest, I actually *wish* that was in fact what
> happened.

I'm convinced it's what happened. Maybe I haven't been following the news
or the newsgroup closely enough, but I haven't seen anyone dispute it. I
haven't seen anyone say "these would be forces involved and humans can
survive these conditions." So, based on my own understanding of what
happened when communications were lost I have come to the conclusion that
the conditions involved would have been instantly lethal.

I only raise this issue because it seems to me that part of the motivation
behind the NY-Times article is to make everyone recoil in horror at the
thought of the astronauts slowing burning alive as their spacecraft
disintegrated around them. The NYT also seems to want to kindle a fresh
wave of sadness and morning by preying upon the fear we all have that their
deaths were torturous.

If this were a movie, a big hole would be blown in side of the cockpit and
air would rush in. There would be screaming and yelling, the sound of
warning klaxons, and flashing red lights all round. But this isn't a movie.
What really happened I believe is that the astronauts died instantly - the
moment the shuttle yawed left - from the incredible amount of centrifugal
force exerted on the cockpit. They never knew what hit them.

[OM]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:24:09 -0500, "Chris" > wrote:

>The NASA data shows that the crew compartment survived at least another
>minute. It shows that the computers survived another minute. I still think
>the crew died instantly - and painlessly. They never knew what hit them.

....And to be totally honest, I actually *wish* that was in fact what
happened.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On 16 Jul 2003 08:34:33 -0500, cndc
> wrote:

>8:00:24 CST Last message from orbiter, "We are bouncing" or something
> like that.

....Do *NOT* consider this official in any way, shape or form. Lizzie
claims she was given this information by some manifestation of Jesus
Christ that's taken residence in her stomach. She's made several other
claims that the same static also has KC screaming "We're burning up!",
along with other outlandish claims. For those not familiar with
Lizzie's claims following the loss of Columbia, here's the google link
to the primary thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=sola4vktelbvifd8ped6lm51fn5ab2hsh1%404ax.c om&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fas_q%3Dcndc%2520jesus%2520%26safe%3Dimage s%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Dsci.space.shuttle%26lr%3D%26num%3D 20%26as_scoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den

(Watch the word wr
ap, kids...)

....Take note that Lizzie has apparently x-no_archive'd her posts, so
that the intact posts don't show up on google unless they're quoted.
However, quite a few people quoted her blatherings while pointing out
that she was dead wrong in her "interpretations" of the static, so you
can very easily get a clear view of what a whacko she is by reading
through the thread. Also, there's a section in the FAQ dealing with
her upset stomach:

http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_s5.html#garbled_xmit

Enjoy!


--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

[cndc]

OM writes:

> ...Do *NOT* consider this official in any way, shape or form. Lizzie
> claims she was given this information by some manifestation of Jesus
> Christ that's taken residence in her stomach. She's made several
> other claims that the same static also has KC screaming "We're
> burning up!", along with other outlandish claims. For those not
> familiar with Lizzie's claims following the loss of Columbia, here's
> the google link to the primary thread:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=sola4vktelbvifd8ped6lm51fn5ab2hsh1%404ax.c om&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fas_q%3Dcndc%2520jesus%2520%26safe%3Dimage s%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Dsci.space.shuttle%26lr%3D%26num%3D 20%26as_scoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den

I said that a spiritual entity entered my stomach prior to my
understanding the "feelin' the heat" phrase near the beginning of the
Columbia's approach recording which before hand was discernible by
myself and I believe the Lord caused it to come into me.

For more information, please see:

http://www.geocities.com/coalition_for_national_day_care/columbia_accident/

> ...Take note that Lizzie has apparently x-no_archive'd her posts, so
> that the intact posts don't show up on google unless they're quoted.
> However, quite a few people quoted her blatherings while pointing
> out that she was dead wrong in her "interpretations" of the static,
> so you can very easily get a clear view of what a whacko she is by
> reading through the thread. Also, there's a section in the FAQ
> dealing with her upset stomach:
>
> http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_s5.html#garbled_xmit

Some people have agreed that there is a brief, human-spoken phrase
about 56 seconds after the "Roger, uh buh..." statement.

Elizabeth

[cndc]

OM writes:

> ...Do *NOT* consider this official in any way, shape or form. Lizzie
> claims she was given this information by some manifestation of Jesus
> Christ that's taken residence in her stomach. She's made several
> other claims that the same static also has KC screaming "We're
> burning up!", along with other outlandish claims. For those not
> familiar with Lizzie's claims following the loss of Columbia, here's
> the google link to the primary thread:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=sola4vktelbvifd8ped6lm51fn5ab2hsh1%404ax.c om&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fas_q%3Dcndc%2520jesus%2520%26safe%3Dimage s%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Dsci.space.shuttle%26lr%3D%26num%3D 20%26as_scoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den

I said that a spiritual entity entered my stomach prior to my
understanding the "feelin' the heat" phrase near the beginning of the
Columbia's approach recording which before hand was indiscernible by
myself and I believe the Lord caused it to come into me.

For more information, please see:

http://www.geocities.com/coalition_for_national_day_care/columbia_accident/

> ...Take note that Lizzie has apparently x-no_archive'd her posts, so
> that the intact posts don't show up on google unless they're quoted.
> However, quite a few people quoted her blatherings while pointing
> out that she was dead wrong in her "interpretations" of the static,
> so you can very easily get a clear view of what a whacko she is by
> reading through the thread. Also, there's a section in the FAQ
> dealing with her upset stomach:
>
> http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_s5.html#garbled_xmit

Some people have agreed that there is a brief, human-spoken phrase
about 56 seconds after the "Roger, uh buh..." statement.

Elizabeth

[TB]

"cndc" wrote:

> I said that a spiritual entity entered my stomach prior to my
> understanding the "feelin' the heat" phrase near the beginning of the
> Columbia's approach recording which before hand was indiscernible by
> myself and I believe the Lord caused it to come into me.

AHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! This is some funny stuff.

T.B.

[Mike Speegle]

In news:TB > typed:
> "cndc" wrote:
>
> > I said that a spiritual entity entered my stomach prior to my
> > understanding the "feelin' the heat" phrase near the beginning of
> > the Columbia's approach recording which before hand was
> > indiscernible by myself and I believe the Lord caused it to come
> > into me.
>
> AHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! This is some funny stuff.

TUMS probably would have cured that. ;-)
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

[Terrence Daniels]

"Mike Speegle" > wrote in message
...
> TUMS probably would have cured that. ;-)
> --
> Mike

ROOFLE

Divine indigestion!

[LooseChanj]

On or about Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:33:35 GMT, Doug . . >
made the sensational claim that:
> My memory is that the initial comm dropout was legitimately ratty comm
> off the tail -- the vertical stabilizer came between the antenna and the
> TDRSS through which comm was being relayed.

The CAIB working scenario suggests the ratty comm was caused by vaporizing slag
coming off the left wing.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[Paul F. Dietz]

LooseChanj wrote:

> The CAIB working scenario suggests the ratty comm was caused by vaporizing slag
> coming off the left wing.

Aluminum becomes ionized at rather low temperature at the pressure at
that altitude, so even a little would greatly affect the electron
density of the plasma behind the orbiter.

Paul

[OM]

On 16 Jul 2003 12:51:19 -0500, cndc
> wrote:

>I said that a spiritual entity entered my stomach prior to my
>understanding the "feelin' the heat" phrase near the beginning of the
>Columbia's approach recording which before hand was discernible by
>myself and I believe the Lord caused it to come into me.

....Mox nix. You introduced nontangible supposition into a scientific
investigation. Ergo, you used a deity as a source and a verifier of
your findings, which is not under any circumstances acceptable.

>Some people have agreed that there is a brief, human-spoken phrase
>about 56 seconds after the "Roger, uh buh..." statement.

....Except that the OEX data clearly shows that power to the crew cabin
went out *before* this "phrase" supposedly was transmitted. Ergo, it
could *not* have originated from Columbia. This is a fact that you
refuse to accept despite the fact that it's documented by the CAIB.
This sort of denial of the truth is what brands you a whacko, Lizzie,
and continuing to make this outlandish claims isn't doing anyone any
good at all. If anything, it's tarnishing the memory of the Columbia
crew by putting words in their mouths that probably weren't uttered
and damn sure weren't transmitted.

This sort of defamational bull**** puts you almost on the same level
as John Maxson. Think about *that* next time you go to confessions,
eh?


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:30:29 GMT, "Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to
\"s\"" > wrote:

>You're a loon.

....And a nutcase, too. Then again, stomach troubles can cause people
to do really dumb things. Kurt Cobain had an ulcer, so he blew his
face off with a shotgun. Lizzie has this upset stomach whose rumblings
sound like Jesus Christ, and now she hears voices where none could
possibly exist.

Tell you what, Liz: send me your mailing address, and I'll personally
send you a bottle of prescription tagamet in hopes it'll help your
problem...


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[John Maxson]

Giganews enables Bob Mosley's abuse for Illuminati Online.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote in message ...
>
> >Some people have agreed that there is a brief, human-spoken phrase
> >about 56 seconds after the "Roger, uh buh..." statement.
>
> This sort of defamational bull**** puts you almost on the same level
> as John Maxson. Think about *that* next time you go to confessions,
> eh?
>
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
> poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr

[Ian Stirling]

OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_nasa_research _facility.org> wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2003 12:51:19 -0500, cndc
> > wrote:
>
>>I said that a spiritual entity entered my stomach prior to my
>>understanding the "feelin' the heat" phrase near the beginning of the
>>Columbia's approach recording which before hand was discernible by
>>myself and I believe the Lord caused it to come into me.
>
> ...Mox nix. You introduced nontangible supposition into a scientific
> investigation. Ergo, you used a deity as a source and a verifier of
> your findings, which is not under any circumstances acceptable.
>
>>Some people have agreed that there is a brief, human-spoken phrase
>>about 56 seconds after the "Roger, uh buh..." statement.
>
> ...Except that the OEX data clearly shows that power to the crew cabin
> went out *before* this "phrase" supposedly was transmitted. Ergo, it
> could *not* have originated from Columbia. This is a fact that you

After 'Roger uh', would/did the other data recieved indicate further
attempts at contact?

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
Get off a shot FAST, this upsets him long enough to let you make your
second shot perfect. -- Robert A Heinlein.

[cndc]

Bruce writes:

> Of course, Jesus told me last night that there will never be
> federally funded National Day Care, but Lizzie doesn't want to hear
> about that part.

This is a topic that is dear to my heart. I'd like to point out
that a nationalized day care program has many benefits, including such
things as hourly-checking for a child's presence and contacting their
guardian should anything be amiss. This should help prevent people
from locking their earthly-children in vehicles during the hot days
summer.

Plus, with a nationalized day care program, the earthly-parents
will be able to pursue their careers knowing that the child is well
taken care of, keeping in mind that some people are very poor and one
of the earthly-parents must stay home to watch the child or
children. Since their income is fairly small, they may have less
opportunity to provide the children with books and a higher education,
which is very important for all of us.

Please see:

http://www.geocities.com/coalition_for_national_day_care/

for more information.

Elizabeth

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
Bruce Palmer > wrote:

> I don't think she's catholic. Catholics, at least the ones I know,
> believe in free will. Lizzie has said that she believes everything is
> pre-ordained to happen and that the individual is powerless against fate.

Ugh. Strict Calvinism. How utterly dreary and meaningless life must be
if everything is preordained.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[OM]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:48:06 GMT, Bruce Palmer
> wrote:

>Of course, Jesus told me last night that there will never be federally
>funded National Day Care, but Lizzie doesn't want to hear about that part.

....Actually, God manifested himself as my pet Tribble last night, and
made it clear that Lizzie does not speak for either himself or any of
his offspring. He also noted that Jesus as a rule manifests himself as
something tangible, like appearing on a tortilla. Popping in Lizzie's
stomach is *not* his standard modus operandi, and that she should
consider the possibility that some other, less benevolent deity, may
in fact be assuming squatter's rights in her gut.

He did, however, suggest that she at least take two Tums before she
posts her bull**** claims again...


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On 17 Jul 2003 13:23:24 -0500, cndc
> wrote:

> This is a topic that is dear to my heart.

....Then stick to that one, then. Because so far it's the only
halfway-sane cause you've got to your name.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, Ian Stirling wrote:
<snip>
> After 'Roger uh', would/did the other data recieved indicate further
> attempts at contact?

Out of curiosity, what communications facilities are built into the
suits?

I haven't read of any further voice communication, but I wonder if
such a transmission *could* have been made via whatever transmitters
were built into the suits (presumably for intra-shuttle com).

Steve

[cndc]

Bruce writes:

> Indeed. A few months ago I was flying somewhere. I was in my seat
> with my seatbelt on when a gate agent boarded the plane, called out
> my name, and proceeded to lead me off the plane. It seems I had
> been randomly picked for the extra-special security screening, which
> TSA had failed to do. So I took off my hat and shoes, unbuckled my
> belt, spread 'em, etc. etc, and got back on the plane which,
> luckily, hadn't departed yet.
>
> Of course, my carry-on bag was on the plane in the overhead bin the
> whole time this was going on. If a real bad guy had been involved
> the horse was already out of the barn, so to speak. Airline
> security is a joke.
>
> I was going to speak up about the idiocy surrounding the whole
> affair but my desire to get where I was going on that day made me
> think twice.

They found a 9mm handgun concealed within a teddy bear recently.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/teddy_bear_gun

If a person on the airplane *you* were on suddenly got up, grabbed a
teddy-bear out of a child's arm and ran to the front of the aircraft
and placed it against the pilot's head, would you still consider
airline security a joke?

Elizabeth

[Sam Seiber]

cndc wrote:
> They found a 9mm handgun concealed within a teddy bear recently.
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/teddy_bear_gun
>
> If a person on the airplane *you* were on suddenly got up, grabbed a
> teddy-bear out of a child's arm and ran to the front of the aircraft
> and placed it against the pilot's head, would you still consider
> airline security a joke?
>
> Elizabeth

Uhhh, Yep. How the hell did the teddy bear make it through
security at the airport? Now that is a joke. A really bad joke.
But what Bruce was talking about was being pulled off the plane
while his carry on was *still* on the plane. His carry on was
not re-checked, but his body was. Again something gets missed.

Sam

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, John Maxson wrote:
> cndc > wrote
> in message ...
>>
>> Some people have agreed that there is a brief, human-spoken
>> phrase about 56 seconds after the "Roger, uh buh..." statement.
>
> I know Tom Whicker has done a good deal of professional work
> in looking into some of this voice data:
>
><http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=3EFFD1DB.F0589BA9%40mindspring.com>
>
> You can find some excellent discussion by Tom if you search by
> date in s.s.s. using Google and his name as author.
>
> --
> John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
> Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

This is interesting, thanks for posting it. I can't distinguish any
words in the audio, but that may be due to a tendency to be overly
cautious on my part.

What's interesting to me is that an apparent signal exists at all.

Steve

[cndc]

Herb writes:

> Yes, it is a joke. If instead of teddy bears with weapons secreted
> therein, the FAA and state authorities allowed concealed-carry
> permit holders (I am one) to board with weapons, no one in their
> right mind would consider hijacking a plane, period.

Herb, Herb, Herb, dear, the last thing we need is a shootout at 20,000
feet.

Elizabeth

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
cndc > wrote:

> Herb writes:
>
> > Yes, it is a joke. If instead of teddy bears with weapons secreted
> > therein, the FAA and state authorities allowed concealed-carry
> > permit holders (I am one) to board with weapons, no one in their
> > right mind would consider hijacking a plane, period.
>
> Herb, Herb, Herb, dear, the last thing we need is a shootout at 20,000
> feet.
>
> Elizabeth

Right. We need more airplanes to crash into buildings; we need more
political terrorists to shoot passengers and dump their bodies out of
the cockpit windows on the tarmac; we need a nice, disarmed and
brainwashed population to sit back and let imaginary "security" be
legislated into existance and the expense of very real rights and
freedoms. If you haven't read what Benjamin Franklin said lo those many
years ago re the interplay of freedom and security, please do so.

The same nonsensical arguments were made against allowing widespread
issuance of concealed carry permits in nearly every state that has
enacted such legislation. So far, the percentage of legally-armed
citizens involved in "shootouts on the interstate" or "shootouts on Main
Street" or "shootouts outside a bar" (or whatever the many arguments
that there have been) has been vanishingly small. Of course the reason
is that those of us who seek out the training required, pay the
requisite fees and carry our weapons responsibly are (by and large) not
the kind of people likely to act as irrationally as you would seem to
believe. I've had my permit for over four years and have not had the
need to draw a weapon. I have had one instance in my life years ago
when I desperately wished I DID have a weapon and did not, and I have
had one instance where I was most assuredly glad that I actually HAD the
weapon although there turned out to be no need to draw it from
concealment; I believe (and will always believe) that the three
troublesome teenagers chose to walk away from me and my family at the
dimly-lit convenience store lot that night precisely because I looked
them straight in the eyes and conspicuously adjusted my concealed weapon
(under my shirt). I guarantee you that 9/11 wouldn't have happened (in
the form that it did, at least) if at least one or two of the passengers
on each plane had been legally armed. Nothing you say to the contrary
can change the fact that armed, determined people (such as hijackers)
can best be deterred or stopped in the act by other armed, determined
people, mushy-headed liberalism notwithstanding.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
Ian Stirling > wrote:

> Unfortunate passengers caught in the line of fire are another unfortunate
> problem.

No worse off than being gutted by a boxcutter at the hands of a
terrorist.

> My solution?
> Everyone flies naked.

Ugh. Have you flown lately?

No, the better solution is to let armed permit carriers to fly armed.
VERY CONSPICUOUSLY armed. As in, not concealed at all. If MAD was good
enough for the Cold War, it ought to be good enough for DCA to LAX . . .
;-)

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[John Maxson]

Stephen Stocker > wrote in message
...
> In article >, John Maxson wrote:
>
> > I know Tom Whicker has done a good deal of professional work
> > in looking into some of this voice data:
> >
> ><http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=3EFFD1DB.F0589BA9%40mindspring.com>
> >
> > You can find some excellent discussion by Tom if you search by
> > date in s.s.s. using Google and his name as author.
>
> This is interesting, thanks for posting it. I can't distinguish any
> words in the audio, but that may be due to a tendency to be overly
> cautious on my part.
>
> What's interesting to me is that an apparent signal exists at all.

Right.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

[Bruce Palmer]

cndc wrote:
> If a person on the airplane *you* were on suddenly got up, grabbed a
> teddy-bear out of a child's arm and ran to the front of the aircraft
> and placed it against the pilot's head, would you still consider
> airline security a joke?

Yes! That would illustrate the point precisely.

The perp wouldn't think it was so funny when I twisted his head through
a 360 deg. angle about the axis of his neck.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

[Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to \s\]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:18:50 -0000, Stephen Stocker > wrote:

>In article >, John Maxson wrote:
>> cndc > wrote
>> in message ...
>>>
>>> Some people have agreed that there is a brief, human-spoken
>>> phrase about 56 seconds after the "Roger, uh buh..." statement.
>>
>> I know Tom Whicker has done a good deal of professional work
>> in looking into some of this voice data:
>>
>><http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=3EFFD1DB.F0589BA9%40mindspring.com>
>>
>> You can find some excellent discussion by Tom if you search by
>> date in s.s.s. using Google and his name as author.

If by "excellent" you mean "discounted after careful analysis", yes. If you
read some of the other posts in that thread, you'll see that Tom implies that
the crew is ignoring the alarms for the loss of FCS channel 4, rapid decrease
in lift-to-drag ratio, left RCS leaks, hydraulic system failures, left OMS
data, and AC volts, in order to calmly discuss the loss of comm: "several crew
members talk at once. Conversation is more difficult to analyze, but seems to
remain on the topic of the communications link." And then somehow made a call
about regaining comm 9 seconds after the orbiter broke up: "...we think we got
problems..."

Tom is convinced that he hears words in the last bit of signal received. Of
course, it is a tendency for the human brain to look for patterns in
randomness, and if one goes looking for speech in a burst of static, there's a
chance that something may be "found".

Given that, Tom claims that the crew was calling to the ground several seconds
after the OEX recorder stopped recording (meaning loss of power to it and,
presumably, the orbiter itself) and after the breakup of the orbiter. He has
not explained how a crewmember could transmit if the crew compartment had
broken away from the rest of the fuselage and completely lost power.

> This is interesting, thanks for posting it. I can't distinguish any
> words in the audio, but that may be due to a tendency to be overly
> cautious on my part.
>
> What's interesting to me is that an apparent signal exists at all.

It's called "static".

[Mary Shafer]

On 17 Jul 2003 19:16:54 -0500, cndc
> wrote:

> There is very little place to hide in such a situation. Plus, if a
> bullet manages to penetrate the aluminum shell of the aircraft,
> decompression will result.

Airliners are designed to retain pressure even after the loss of at
least one window. Bullet holes are tiny compared to windows.

It's highly unlikely that even several bullet holes would cause
decompression. Even if they did, it would be a slow decompression,
not an explosive decompression.

Fuselage pressure vessels commonly have some leakage in normal
operation, by the way. Back in the days of smoking, the tar from
cigarettes would mark the leaks, making it easy to see where the leaks
were.

> The aircraft (a Boeing 737; Aloha Airlines Flight 243) suffered
> structural damage (possibly as a result from aging) which caused a hole
> on the port side of the vessel. A flight attendant was partially
> sucked out of the airplane as her shoulders jammed against the
> fuselage smashing her head against the outside of the vehicle. A short
> time later the top of the front of the airplane tore off:
>
> http://www.disastercity.com/flt243/

This sounds very fanciful. Does anyone have a reference to the NTSB
report? I heard that it essentially ripped instantaneously, with the
roof detaching over the first-class section. It was, obviously, an
explosive decompression.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, Michael R.
Grabois ... change $ to "s" wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, what communications facilities are built into the
>> suits?
>>
>> I haven't read of any further voice communication, but I wonder if
>> such a transmission *could* have been made via whatever transmitters
>> were built into the suits (presumably for intra-shuttle com).
>
> There are no transmitters built into the suits. All comm goes through a mic
> that's plugged into an audio unit, which routes the audio to either a speaker
> (if it's turned on) or to the audio units of whoever is plugged in. The system
> is set up so that they're "hot mic" in the cockpit ("vox") but they have to
> push a button to talk to MCC (aka "PTT", or "press-to-talk"). Being 1970's
> technology, there's no wireless audio built in.
> More info on shuttle comm/audio can be found at
><http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/comm/orbcomm/audio.html>
>
> I *think* they have hand-held walkie-talkies used for communicating with the
> convoy upon landing should comm be out for whatever reason, but nothing with
> the ability to transmit from space to the ground.

Thanks. I was wondering about it, and it's something I'd never come
across. Apparently I didn't look hard enough! :)

Steve

[cndc]

Mary writes:

> Airliners are designed to retain pressure even after the loss of at
> least one window. Bullet holes are tiny compared to windows.

How could they possibly retain pressure at such a high altitude with
such a massive hole? My understanding of it is that the aircraft is
supposed to decompress soundly in a controlled manner so that the body
doesn't crush and/or break up. Masks are then dropped and the pilots
make an emergency descent.

> It's highly unlikely that even several bullet holes would cause
> decompression. Even if they did, it would be a slow decompression,
> not an explosive decompression.

That's good to know.

> Fuselage pressure vessels commonly have some leakage in normal
> operation, by the way. Back in the days of smoking, the tar from
> cigarettes would mark the leaks, making it easy to see where the leaks
> were.
>
> > The aircraft (a Boeing 737; Aloha Airlines Flight 243) suffered
> > structural damage (possibly as a result from aging) which caused a hole
> > on the port side of the vessel. A flight attendant was partially
> > sucked out of the airplane as her shoulders jammed against the
> > fuselage smashing her head against the outside of the vehicle. A short
> > time later the top of the front of the airplane tore off:
> >
> > http://www.disastercity.com/flt243/
>
> This sounds very fanciful. Does anyone have a reference to the NTSB
> report? I heard that it essentially ripped instantaneously, with
> the roof detaching over the first-class section. It was, obviously,
> an explosive decompression.

There is a blood halo of where the flight attendant's head hit the
hull of the aircraft:

http://disastercity.com/ghost/

There is a link on that page entitled:

Official NTSB Executive Summary of the Aloha Flight 243 Accident
http://www.disastercity.com/flt243/index.htm

but it goes to the same website. The maintainer of the site (?)
speculates that the roof was torn off because of what he calls a
"Fluid Hammer" in that there was a fairly small hole (10 - 12 inches)
which sucked the stewardess partly out briefly plugging the hole,
which then caused pressure in the aircraft to build up and as a result
blow the top off of first class.

Elizabeth

[OM]

On 18 Jul 2003 00:39:01 -0500, cndc
> wrote:

>Perhaps you are not able to discern the voice in it as well as some
>others but there obviously is a human-spoken phrase in that last
>segment. Tom hears it, I hear it, the person that brought it to our
>attention heard it (and when I first that post I thought the poster
>was joking), *alot* of people hear words there but they are not
>particularly clear.

....A lot of people do *not* hear words there, Lizzie. I don't, Michael
doesn't, pretty much all the regulars around here don't, and the CAIB
damn sure doesn't, and it's *their* assessment that counts in the end.

Bottom Line: That "Jesus" in your tummy is nothing more than an upset
stomach. Take some Maalox and go back to focusing your efforts on that
national day care crusade. You'll be better off there than trying to
convince everyone that the static that's there is anything but.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Paul Blay]

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote ...
> In article >,
> Bruce Palmer > wrote:
>
> > I don't think she's catholic. Catholics, at least the ones I know,
> > believe in free will. Lizzie has said that she believes everything is
> > pre-ordained to happen and that the individual is powerless against fate.
>
> Ugh. Strict Calvinism. How utterly dreary and meaningless life must be
> if everything is preordained.

Not if you are predestined to have a happy and exciting life. :-P

[John Maxson]

Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s" >
wrote in message ...
>
> If by "excellent" you mean "discounted after careful analysis",
> yes.

Tom did his analysis very early, and published it here then. His
analysis well preceded any OEX data. Crew words have been a
topic of discussion, but I thought Tom's analysis was thorough.
I've seen no conclusive evidence or analysis to refute it. I think
Tom has done a good job of defending his original analysis.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)





If you
> read some of the other posts in that thread, you'll see that Tom implies
that
> the crew is ignoring the alarms for the loss of FCS channel 4, rapid
decrease
> in lift-to-drag ratio, left RCS leaks, hydraulic system failures, left OMS
> data, and AC volts, in order to calmly discuss the loss of comm: "several
crew
> members talk at once. Conversation is more difficult to analyze, but seems
to
> remain on the topic of the communications link." And then somehow made a
call
> about regaining comm 9 seconds after the orbiter broke up: "...we think we
got
> problems..."
>
> Tom is convinced that he hears words in the last bit of signal received.
Of
> course, it is a tendency for the human brain to look for patterns in
> randomness, and if one goes looking for speech in a burst of static,
there's a
> chance that something may be "found".
>
> Given that, Tom claims that the crew was calling to the ground several
seconds
> after the OEX recorder stopped recording (meaning loss of power to it and,
> presumably, the orbiter itself) and after the breakup of the orbiter. He
has
> not explained how a crewmember could transmit if the crew compartment had
> broken away from the rest of the fuselage and completely lost power.
>
> > This is interesting, thanks for posting it. I can't distinguish any
> > words in the audio, but that may be due to a tendency to be overly
> > cautious on my part.
> >
> > What's interesting to me is that an apparent signal exists at all.
>
> It's called "static".
>

[Richard Kaszeta]

Mary Shafer > writes:
> On 17 Jul 2003 19:16:54 -0500, cndc
> > wrote:
> > http://www.disastercity.com/flt243/
>
> This sounds very fanciful. Does anyone have a reference to the NTSB
> report?

http://www.menet.umn.edu/~kaszeta/download/AAR89-03.pdf

> I heard that it essentially ripped instantaneously, with the
> roof detaching over the first-class section. It was, obviously, an
> explosive decompression.

Indeed, this is what the report states.

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[Paul Maxson]

http://www.transportnews.com/Article/139297?KW=ammunition

and this,

http://www.a-merc.com/

There is a newer brand in one of my magazines that advertises the Airline
Anti Terrorist round but I can't think of the name of it right now.

It pierces skin but not walls and is a good home defense round too.
Very pricy when I checked, I can grab my Handguns Mag if anyone is
interested.

Paul Maxson

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 Jul 2003 19:16:54 -0500, cndc
> > wrote:
>
> > There is very little place to hide in such a situation. Plus, if a
> > bullet manages to penetrate the aluminum shell of the aircraft,
> > decompression will result.
>
> Airliners are designed to retain pressure even after the loss of at
> least one window. Bullet holes are tiny compared to windows.
>
> It's highly unlikely that even several bullet holes would cause
> decompression. Even if they did, it would be a slow decompression,
> not an explosive decompression.
>
> Fuselage pressure vessels commonly have some leakage in normal
> operation, by the way. Back in the days of smoking, the tar from
> cigarettes would mark the leaks, making it easy to see where the leaks
> were.
>
> > The aircraft (a Boeing 737; Aloha Airlines Flight 243) suffered
> > structural damage (possibly as a result from aging) which caused a hole
> > on the port side of the vessel. A flight attendant was partially
> > sucked out of the airplane as her shoulders jammed against the
> > fuselage smashing her head against the outside of the vehicle. A short
> > time later the top of the front of the airplane tore off:
> >
> > http://www.disastercity.com/flt243/
>
> This sounds very fanciful. Does anyone have a reference to the NTSB
> report? I heard that it essentially ripped instantaneously, with the
> roof detaching over the first-class section. It was, obviously, an
> explosive decompression.
>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>
> "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
> Anonymous US fighter pilot

[Richard Kaszeta]

Ian Stirling > writes:
> > http://www.disastercity.com/flt243/
>
> Unfortunately, I do not have access to the NTSB report, as it's too old.

I posted a URL to a scanned copy.

> Addressing only that paragraph, from the summary of the report which
> is all I can find at http://www.disastercity.com/flt243/index.htm
> from eyewitness reports, there was no 'short time later', the
> hole formed more or less at once.

I've also read transcripts of the cockpit voice recorder, and the
depressurization and tearing noise occur nearly simultaneously, and
it's just seconds later that the flight crew reports seeing blue sky
through the open (or missing) cabin door.

--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

[Moe Blues]

In article >, cndc
> wrote:

>
> How could they possibly retain pressure at such a high altitude with
> such a massive hole? My understanding of it is that the aircraft is
> supposed to decompress soundly in a controlled manner so that the body
> doesn't crush and/or break up. Masks are then dropped and the pilots
> make an emergency descent.

Your understanding is incorrect. Because the mechanism of a
decompression is utterly unpredictable, it is not possible to design a
pressure hull to is will "decompress soundly." Loss of a window would
indeed lead to loss of cabin pressure, but not (usually) in an
explosive manner.

>
> There is a blood halo of where the flight attendant's head hit the
> hull of the aircraft:

Sorry--not physically possible. The "halo" is someone's imagination.
(Think about it--blood or any other fluid subjected to a 120- to
250-knot wind is going to run, not remain in a perfect "halo.")

>
> but it goes to the same website. The maintainer of the site (?)
> speculates that the roof was torn off because of what he calls a
> "Fluid Hammer" in that there was a fairly small hole (10 - 12 inches)
> which sucked the stewardess partly out briefly plugging the hole,
> which then caused pressure in the aircraft to build up and as a result
> blow the top off of first class.

Which tells us the maintainer of the site is completely ignorant of
both physics and the workings of aircraft. Not only that, he's
apparently never read the accident report, since the documented
sequence of events isn't even close to his description.

Gee, wish I could make **** up out of whole cloth and develop a
following of true believers.

Moe

>
> Elizabeth

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, cndc wrote:
>> > What's interesting to me is that an apparent signal exists at all.
>>
>> It's called "static".

Oops, I missed this. It appears to be RF from *something*, not
consistent with natural "noise", of which there isn't a lot at VHF or
above. Or to put it differently, something opened the squelch several
times after the whole thing lost power. At least if my time sequence
is right.

Maybe given the fact that all hell was breaking loose at the time,
this shouldn't be surprising. I'm assuming that there were numerous
things onboard which had self-contained power, a number of which would
be capable of RF noise-making.

But there are problems with this, too. The most obvious is that, at
UHF and microwave, most harmonics and other RF garbage are extremely
weak. Impulse noise can wreak havoc, especially with digital
communications, but usually only if it originates very close to a
receiver.

Anybody have a brain that's awake? I think mine just left. *g*

Steve

[John Maxson]

Stephen Stocker > wrote in message
...
>
> It appears to be RF from *something*, not consistent with
> natural "noise", of which there isn't a lot at VHF or above.
<snip>
> Maybe given the fact that all hell was breaking loose at the
> time, this shouldn't be surprising.

In Columbia's terminal timeline (the one based on reconstructed
telemetry), most of the "hell breaking loose" was qualified either
by "data suspect" or as "some of the following conclusions may
be in error."

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

[OM]

On 18 Jul 2003 12:24:24 -0500, cndc
> wrote:

>I was mistaken. Thank you for correcting me.

....Here's another correction: trim your quotes.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[MGrabois]

Doug... > wrote in message >...
> In article >, "Michael R.
> Grabois ... change $ to \"s\"" > says...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Given that, Tom claims that the crew was calling to the ground several seconds
> > after the OEX recorder stopped recording (meaning loss of power to it and,
> > presumably, the orbiter itself) and after the breakup of the orbiter. He has
> > not explained how a crewmember could transmit if the crew compartment had
> > broken away from the rest of the fuselage and completely lost power.
>
> OK -- I understand the objection, and figure it's likely quite valid.
> But I have a question about the OEX recorder, here.
>
> What I had heard about the OEX recorder is that the tape was broken
> within the machine. The last valid timestamp on the tape found on the
> takeup reel was indeed nine seconds prior to the alleged transmission in
> question. But there was damaged tape within the recorder. Are we
> absolutely certain that the last valid timestamp occurred directly before
> loss of power, or is it the last valid timestamp seen prior to
> degradation of the tape due to the physical damage incurred when the tape
> was broken?
>
> I just want to make sure that the assumption that's being made, that the
> OEX tape data ends at 8:00:14 *solely* because of power loss, is valid.
> Can someone point me to the documentation of the validity of this
> assumption? Thanks!

According to the CAIB press briefings, there was no data on the
damaged tape section (that is, the tape stopped recording, not that it
was the last recoverable time tag on the tape). I've heard people here
refer to a broken tape, but from the testimony below, they don't
specify.

Here are some events (all CST):
08:00:13.44 - OEX PCM loss of synch
08:00:17/21 - Debris B seen leaving the orbiter
08:00:18/22 - Debris C seen leaving the orbiter
08:00:19.44 - OEX FDM "end of data"
08:00:21/25 - onset of vehicle main body breakup
08:00:30 - Tom claims to hear "...we think we got problems..."


From the 3/26/03 CAIB press conference:
http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/pb030326.html
http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/pb030326-present.html (slide
1)
"So to start, let's examine the OEX recorder. The million-dollar
question, of course, is what's on it. It arrived in overall good
condition. It's got 1-inch tape with 28 tracks on it. If you look
closely in the lower right-hand corner, you can see the very end of
the tape there, which had a crumpled and wrinkled section about 10 to
15 inches long. Initial testing that was done just yesterday shows
there is no data on this section. We believe this is actually a good
outcome. It indicates, we hope, that the data recording is back in the
earlier part of the reel where it is, relatively speaking, undamaged.
"

From the April 1, 2003 CAIB press conference:
http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/pb030401.html
http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/pb030401-present-oex.html
(slide 1)
"So if we put up the first slide, this one you've seen before; but it
is the OEX recorder which, as you can see, is in pretty good shape.
Let me give you a kind of verbal description of what's on the recorder
and what we can get out of it. It has two types of data. Data called
PCM, which is pulse code modulation. This is low-frequency data and
normally is used to get information about pressures, temperatures, and
strain. It has FDM data, which is frequency division multiplex data,
basically wide band. That data includes stress and strain sensors
relative to the structural area, the vertical fin, the speed brake,
and the heat shield, and also contains data relative to the main
engine vibration.
[paragraphs snipped]
Let me talk about the descent. The FDM data went to Greenwich Mean
Time 14, zero minutes, and 19.4 seconds. That's 15 seconds after any
of the other sensory data that we previously had received. By that I
mean the 32-second piece that we had that you may recall had a 5
seconds, 25 seconds missing, and then 2 final seconds. So we've got 15
seconds more than that now. In addition, we have sensors that now tell
us about the 25 seconds which previously was missing.

The PCM data did not quite go so long. It went to Greenwich Mean Time
14, zero minutes, 13.4 seconds, or 9 seconds longer than the previous
one. What all this suggests, of course, is that the OEX recorder,
which is inside the fuselage, was receiving power during that entire
period of time; and, of course, at that point the fuselage had
probably not broken up."


According to the Space Shuttle Systems Handbook, a standard set of
technical drawings of the various orbiter systems, the OEX was powered
via MPC3 (a sub-bus of Main C) and control bus CA3, via a switch on
panel C3 (on the back right, between the PLT and MS2). There are four
ways for the OEX to stop recording data: loss of Main C or one of its
sub-buses; loss of the control bus which powers the switch; switch
moved to the "OFF" position, which can't happen on its own due to the
design of the switch itself; or OEX malfunction.

MPC3 is powered via Main C, which is powered via fuel cell 3. The
control bus is redundantly powered via all three main buses.

There was no data downlinked after 08:00:04.83, so we can't tell what
was going on inside the orbiter for the next 14.6 seconds until the
OEX stopped recording. However, with what was going on at the time,
there is absolutely no way the crew would have manually removed power
to the OEX because they would have been fighting for control of the
vehicle (see earlier posts for the list of failure messages they would
have gotten by that point). To me, that leaves the loss of power to
the OEX as the reason for it stopping. And the only ways to lose power
to the OEX is if wires were severed or massively shorted.

--
Michael R. Grabois -//- http://chili.cjb.net
Gravity. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

[John Maxson]

MGrabois > wrote in message
m...
> "John Maxson" >
> wrote in message >...
>
> > Tom did his analysis very early, and published it here then. His
> > analysis well preceded any OEX data. Crew words have been a
> > topic of discussion, but I thought Tom's analysis was thorough.
> > I've seen no conclusive evidence or analysis to refute it. I think
> > Tom has done a good job of defending his original analysis.
>
> You mean like his March 7th post <http://tinyurl.com/he6r> where he
> writes:
> "I continue to be convinced that the audio contained in the 32 second
> "garble" indicates a normal, almost routine crew conversation. This
> would be consistent with the telemetry which shows the craft intact
> and under control for this period."

The Rev 15 Baseline is dated March 10, subsequent to that post.
Elsewhere in this thread I quoted the pertinent Rev 15 disclaimers.
As I stated above, I refer to Tom's basic voice analysis, not words.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

[OM]

On 18 Jul 2003 17:27:06 -0700, (MGrabois)
wrote:

>Here are some events (all CST):
>08:00:13.44 - OEX PCM loss of synch
>08:00:17/21 - Debris B seen leaving the orbiter
>08:00:18/22 - Debris C seen leaving the orbiter
>08:00:19.44 - OEX FDM "end of data"
>08:00:21/25 - onset of vehicle main body breakup
>08:00:30 - Tom claims to hear "...we think we got problems..."

....Orbity, I've got one thought that went through my head: could Tom's
recording have somehow picked up "bleedover" from one of the MOCR
loops? One of the flight controllers making the comment, and somehow
the signal crossed over the lines due to RF bleed? Something similar
to when the comments about the breakup over Dallas were heard in the
background while a mike was keyed.

Again, it's just a thought.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
> Doug... > wrote in message >...
> > In article >, "Michael R.
> > Grabois ... change $ to \"s\"" > says...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Given that, Tom claims that the crew was calling to the ground several seconds
> > > after the OEX recorder stopped recording (meaning loss of power to it and,
> > > presumably, the orbiter itself) and after the breakup of the orbiter. He has
> > > not explained how a crewmember could transmit if the crew compartment had
> > > broken away from the rest of the fuselage and completely lost power.
> >
> > OK -- I understand the objection, and figure it's likely quite valid.
> > But I have a question about the OEX recorder, here.
> >
> > What I had heard about the OEX recorder is that the tape was broken
> > within the machine. The last valid timestamp on the tape found on the
> > takeup reel was indeed nine seconds prior to the alleged transmission in
> > question. But there was damaged tape within the recorder. Are we
> > absolutely certain that the last valid timestamp occurred directly before
> > loss of power, or is it the last valid timestamp seen prior to
> > degradation of the tape due to the physical damage incurred when the tape
> > was broken?
> >
> > I just want to make sure that the assumption that's being made, that the
> > OEX tape data ends at 8:00:14 *solely* because of power loss, is valid.
> > Can someone point me to the documentation of the validity of this
> > assumption? Thanks!
>
> According to the CAIB press briefings, there was no data on the
> damaged tape section (that is, the tape stopped recording, not that it
> was the last recoverable time tag on the tape). I've heard people here
> refer to a broken tape, but from the testimony below, they don't
> specify.
>
> Here are some events (all CST):
> 08:00:13.44 - OEX PCM loss of synch
> 08:00:17/21 - Debris B seen leaving the orbiter
> 08:00:18/22 - Debris C seen leaving the orbiter
> 08:00:19.44 - OEX FDM "end of data"
> 08:00:21/25 - onset of vehicle main body breakup
> 08:00:30 - Tom claims to hear "...we think we got problems..."
>
>
> From the 3/26/03 CAIB press conference:
> http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/pb030326.html
> http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/pb030326-present.html (slide
> 1)
> "So to start, let's examine the OEX recorder. The million-dollar
> question, of course, is what's on it. It arrived in overall good
> condition. It's got 1-inch tape with 28 tracks on it. If you look
> closely in the lower right-hand corner, you can see the very end of
> the tape there, which had a crumpled and wrinkled section about 10 to
> 15 inches long. Initial testing that was done just yesterday shows
> there is no data on this section. We believe this is actually a good
> outcome. It indicates, we hope, that the data recording is back in the
> earlier part of the reel where it is, relatively speaking, undamaged.
> "
>
> From the April 1, 2003 CAIB press conference:
> http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/pb030401.html
> http://www.caib.us/news/press_briefings/pb030401-present-oex.html
> (slide 1)
> "So if we put up the first slide, this one you've seen before; but it
> is the OEX recorder which, as you can see, is in pretty good shape.
> Let me give you a kind of verbal description of what's on the recorder
> and what we can get out of it. It has two types of data. Data called
> PCM, which is pulse code modulation. This is low-frequency data and
> normally is used to get information about pressures, temperatures, and
> strain. It has FDM data, which is frequency division multiplex data,
> basically wide band. That data includes stress and strain sensors
> relative to the structural area, the vertical fin, the speed brake,
> and the heat shield, and also contains data relative to the main
> engine vibration.
> [paragraphs snipped]
> Let me talk about the descent. The FDM data went to Greenwich Mean
> Time 14, zero minutes, and 19.4 seconds. That's 15 seconds after any
> of the other sensory data that we previously had received. By that I
> mean the 32-second piece that we had that you may recall had a 5
> seconds, 25 seconds missing, and then 2 final seconds. So we've got 15
> seconds more than that now. In addition, we have sensors that now tell
> us about the 25 seconds which previously was missing.
>
> The PCM data did not quite go so long. It went to Greenwich Mean Time
> 14, zero minutes, 13.4 seconds, or 9 seconds longer than the previous
> one. What all this suggests, of course, is that the OEX recorder,
> which is inside the fuselage, was receiving power during that entire
> period of time; and, of course, at that point the fuselage had
> probably not broken up."
>
>
> According to the Space Shuttle Systems Handbook, a standard set of
> technical drawings of the various orbiter systems, the OEX was powered
> via MPC3 (a sub-bus of Main C) and control bus CA3, via a switch on
> panel C3 (on the back right, between the PLT and MS2). There are four
> ways for the OEX to stop recording data: loss of Main C or one of its
> sub-buses; loss of the control bus which powers the switch; switch
> moved to the "OFF" position, which can't happen on its own due to the
> design of the switch itself; or OEX malfunction.
>
> MPC3 is powered via Main C, which is powered via fuel cell 3. The
> control bus is redundantly powered via all three main buses.
>
> There was no data downlinked after 08:00:04.83, so we can't tell what
> was going on inside the orbiter for the next 14.6 seconds until the
> OEX stopped recording. However, with what was going on at the time,
> there is absolutely no way the crew would have manually removed power
> to the OEX because they would have been fighting for control of the
> vehicle (see earlier posts for the list of failure messages they would
> have gotten by that point). To me, that leaves the loss of power to
> the OEX as the reason for it stopping. And the only ways to lose power
> to the OEX is if wires were severed or massively shorted.

Thank you, Michael. I hadn't heard the follow-up on the condition of the
tape and the manner in which the data ended. It's good to know what the
actual circumstances were in this case.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, John Maxson wrote:
> Stephen Stocker > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It appears to be RF from *something*, not consistent with
>> natural "noise", of which there isn't a lot at VHF or above.
><snip>
>> Maybe given the fact that all hell was breaking loose at the
>> time, this shouldn't be surprising.
>
> In Columbia's terminal timeline (the one based on reconstructed
> telemetry), most of the "hell breaking loose" was qualified either
> by "data suspect" or as "some of the following conclusions may
> be in error."

That makes sense, and leaves open the possibility of further voice
communication.

Whatever the case, I've done everything I can think of with the audio,
and still can't even distinguish the presence or absence of a voice.
Even some simple frequency comparisons between background noise, voice
segments and unidentified audio aren't very helpful. In other words,
I'm right where I started.

Steve

[John Maxson]

Stephen Stocker > wrote in message
...
> In article >, John Maxson wrote:
>
> > In Columbia's terminal timeline (the one based on reconstructed
> > telemetry), most of the "hell breaking loose" was qualified either
> > by "data suspect" or as "some of the following conclusions may
> > be in error."
>
> That makes sense, and leaves open the possibility of further voice
> communication.
>
> Whatever the case, I've done everything I can think of with the audio,
> and still can't even distinguish the presence or absence of a voice.
> Even some simple frequency comparisons between background noise,
> voice segments and unidentified audio aren't very helpful. In other
> words I'm right where I started.

That's one more vote for "undecided." Do you think Whicker's
opinion is "out of whack?" It sounded professional to me.

I've had good experience with professionals in Tom's line. They
are experts in the determination of voice content in audio tapes
with barely audible stretches. This may be a different situation.

I have no opinion about what Tom suggests the words may be,
but I'm inclined to believe that words could be there (words which
Tom is able to broadly classify as to status). The latest furor in
the media as to how the crew lived an additional minute seems to
suggest the possibility of last-second voices.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

[Stephen Stocker]

In article >, John Maxson wrote:
> Stephen Stocker > wrote in message
> ...
<snip>
>> Whatever the case, I've done everything I can think of with the audio,
>> and still can't even distinguish the presence or absence of a voice.
>> Even some simple frequency comparisons between background noise,
>> voice segments and unidentified audio aren't very helpful. In other
>> words I'm right where I started.

> That's one more vote for "undecided." Do you think Whicker's
> opinion is "out of whack?" It sounded professional to me.

I'm glad you mentioned that, I meant to address it. In a word, no. I
haven't seen anything to indicate that he's pushing his own agenda, or
implying that he has the last word on the subject. He's just stating
his opinion, based on his own research. In addition, he invites reader
feedback on his conclusions.

> I've had good experience with professionals in Tom's line. They
> are experts in the determination of voice content in audio tapes
> with barely audible stretches. This may be a different situation.

It's a fascinating field, one which has grown beyond my
knowledge/ability. (A gross understatement!)

> I have no opinion about what Tom suggests the words may be,

Me neither, at this point.

> but I'm inclined to believe that words could be there (words which
> Tom is able to broadly classify as to status). The latest furor in
> the media as to how the crew lived an additional minute seems to
> suggest the possibility of last-second voices.

Yeah. I'm sort of wandering all over with this topic, but until I can
resolve it one way or the other, I'll stay open-minded, not to mention
very interested.

Steve

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
Kegwasher > wrote:

> Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> > On 18 Jul 2003 00:33:29 -0500, cndc
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Mary writes:
> >>
> >> > Airliners are designed to retain pressure even after the loss of at
> >> > least one window. Bullet holes are tiny compared to windows.
> >>
> >> How could they possibly retain pressure at such a high altitude with
> >> such a massive hole? My understanding of it is that the aircraft is
> >> supposed to decompress soundly in a controlled manner so that the body
> >> doesn't crush and/or break up. Masks are then dropped and the pilots
> >> make an emergency descent.
> >
> > Do you understand how cabin pressure works? Cooled bleed air from the
> > engine inlets is compressed and fed into the pressure vessel at the
> > front and, for larger aircraft, at various fuselage stations. The
> > amount of air fed into the pressure vessel is the amount needed to
> > keep the cabin at the set pressure. Excess air is vented.
> >
> > There are exit vents at the back of the pressure vessel that
> > constantly vent cabin air overboard. This air is replaced by the
> > incoming air. All the air in the cabin is changed (vented, actually)
> > every ten to twenty minutes.
> >
> > This system has enough excess capacity to feed enough air to
> > compensate for the venting through a window-sized hole without any
> > increase in cabin altitude. There may be a brief climb in cabin
> > altitude during the system transient, but it's limited.
> >
> > No emergency descent required, although the crew would probably
> > request a lower altitude and move pax away from that area, if only for
> > comfort.
> >
> > Actually, the compression system may be big enough to handle the loss
> > of two windows and the fuselage skin between them, but I'm having
> > trouble with searching the FARs. Airliners are built to be remarkably
> > robust.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> Airbus (for the A380) is requiring the company I work for to perform all
> depressurization calculations for a hole the size of a large dinner plate
> (ie a window). We are given that there is a large hole in the pressure
> vessel, and the AGU's are offline. The outflow valve and controller must
> keep the pressure in the cabin from changing at higher than a certain
> pressure equivalent foot per minute. As soon as the loss in pressure is
> detected the flight crew begins what could be called an emergency decent.
> I do not have a copy of the profile at home but it was a damn fast decent
> to below 12000 feet and then slowing the decent rate until a new cruising
> altitude of 9500 (IIRC) is reached. We had to perform calculations for
> cabin pressure and temperature as a function of time for the window loss.
> The lag rate on that huge cabin is amazing.
>
Way back when, I performed similar leak-rate calculations for the U.S.
Lab/Hab modules given various sized penetrations of the pressure
vessels; it's been a long time ago, but IIRC a one-inch diameter hole
still allowed nearly an hour before ppO2 levels fell low enough to
require element evacuation, even without repressurization from the
high-pressure 02/N2 systems. I've also been on an aircraft that had an
unplanned depressurization event (flight engineer on an TN ANG KC-135
bumfuzzled the cabin vent valve; all that happened was our ears popped
and kept popping while the Loadmaster started passing out O2 cylinders
and buckling people back into jump seats). Folks, it's NOT like the
movies . . .

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

[Paul Maxson]

"Bruce Palmer" > wrote in message
et...
> Herb Schaltegger wrote:
> > Oh, nonsense. Most states already require such checks of "earthly
> > children" (I don't believe extraterrestrials are covered by state DHS
> > regulations, but I could be mistaken . . .) along with a whole slew of
> > additional requirements. Whether individual centers comply with such
> > regulations is irrelevant to the argument about merits (or the lack
> > thereof) to "nationalizing" day care programs. I don't see that
> > "nationalizing" airport security has done all that much except **** off
> > anyone who needs to fly who still retains any sense of privacy or belief
> > in the Bill of Rights.
> >
>
> Indeed. A few months ago I was flying somewhere. I was in my seat with
> my seatbelt on when a gate agent boarded the plane, called out my name,
> and proceeded to lead me off the plane. It seems I had been randomly
> picked for the extra-special security screening, which TSA had failed to
> do. So I took off my hat and shoes, unbuckled my belt, spread 'em, etc.
> etc, and got back on the plane which, luckily, hadn't departed yet.
>
> Of course, my carry-on bag was on the plane in the overhead bin the
> whole time this was going on. If a real bad guy had been involved the
> horse was already out of the barn, so to speak. Airline security is a
joke.
>
> I was going to speak up about the idiocy surrounding the whole affair
> but my desire to get where I was going on that day made me think twice.
>
> --
> bp
> Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

As to everyone carrying armed if they have a CCW I have to disagree.
Not for reasons you may think though I am a major proponent of CCW,
the 2nd Amendment and a lifetime member of the NRA.


Just not on airplanes, public yes in your POV or in a restaurant with
training
but *not* airplanes. Leave that to the experts with specialized training.
TSA now falls under the DOT as does water ways railroads etc.
TSA is in desperate need of funds and fights the FAA daily! I have witnessed
it.
At my airport the Property and the LEO's are County, they have what is
called an Airport
Security Coordinator. Ours is a retired AARF guy who was injured and given a
desk job.
A County employee still trying to communicate his message to 2 Agencies!

The FAA investigates and now toss in TSA. Having worked there and met with
members from all
3 let me tell you it is a 3 ringed circus! All 3 have different ideas of
what is right!
That is why I quit after working my way up to LT. I started meeting with
these 3 Agencies
(including the stressed out AARF guy) and I never got anywhere, it was
ridiculous.
Upon resigning I told them why to in writing, since then they have made
improvements
but per my friends still out their (perimeter not interior) it's a joke.

We simply need more money for more
Air Marshall's and airport security (like Israel's Airlines and Airport.)
They have Marshall's on *every* flight and automatic weapons in their
airport.
Not too often do they have airport security problems. On US schedules some
flights
have NO Marshal's at all due to lack of funding. How often do you hear of a
Israel's
Airport being evacuated or one of their planes being hijacked (I just
probably triggered
DS100 or whatever they are calling it now hehe sorry)
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/carnivore/carnlrgmap.htm

Back to ammo, this is what they should carry after their mandatory
6 weeks of specialized training (the Air Marshall's)
not counting their law enforcement training. Air Marshall training is
mandatory
even if you are an Army Ranger or current say armed Custom Agent at an
Airport.
For one thing CCW's are issued by County. Air Marshall's have *Federal*
jurisdiction.

www.extremesockusa.com that is the best airline ammo around, PERIOD!

click products info,
R2LP-Extraordinary Capability & A New Level Of Control
The reduced over-penetration and reduced ricochet characteristics of these
rounds are nothing short of revolutionary. Over-penetration is minimized as
the complete energy of the AFR bullet, including the fragmented bullet
itself are typically contained within the target. The risk to EMS personnel
is reduced because the rounds don't leave the many glove-shredding, razor
sharp fragments of traditional rounds. The ExtremeShockTM AFR round
disintegrates when it hits hard targets such as many interior walls and
airplane skins, but retains astonishing stopping power on organic targets.
Its capability for inside-the-aircraft antiterrorism operations is legendary
within the special operations community .

I would not like to see a crossfire situation with 10 armed citizens when
someone pulled out a box cutter. As usual it all comes down to money :-(
---------

As to the guy that was pulled off the plane go complain. Both TSA and the
FAA
have complaint pages for instances exactly like this. If you don't tell them
they will never know.

The phone number is (866) 289-9673 and is staffed Monday - Friday 8:30
am-5:00 pm ET and will take voice mail
messages after hours.

The fax number is 202-267-5091, and the e-mail address is

TSA also has a similar complaint process.

Paul Maxson

[Prime]

"Chris" > indicated as if he was there, in news:bf3ujk$a44
:

What really happened I believe is that the astronauts
> died instantly - the moment the shuttle yawed left - from the
> incredible amount of centrifugal force exerted on the cockpit. They
> never knew what hit them.
>
>
>

I doubt that very seriously. The drag on the left wing was increasing
slowly with the decay of its aerodynamics. The control system was being
gradually overpowered. The ship didn't just go from controlled flight to a
"whipping" motion strong enough to disable or snap necks, etc. The loss of
control was gradual. The effective airspeed at that altitude was low (I
read somewhere about 160kts - strong but not as signficant as on an
airliner). Many believe that the regain of signal briefly about 30 seconds
later was the result of one 360 flat revolution - hardly a rate that would
assume they "...never knew what hit them"

Prime