Data Disparities (Columbia/Challenger Crew Survival)

[John Maxson]

Stephen Stocker > wrote in message
...
>
> Anybody have a brain that's awake?

I think Tom Whicker does. I try to keep an open mind about
data disparities, until I have a convincing explanation for them.


Let me switch disasters for an example. From the same forward
location of RCS flames, three major pieces of separating debris
flew out of the 51-L fireball. Av Week and Florida TV stations
identified one of these as the "crew module," while NASA called
a different piece the "crew cabin." That's a major data disparity!

NASA refers to the Av Week piece as "forward payload bay."

I don't know of any camera or combination of cameras which
continuously tracks either piece from their point of fireball exit,
although NASA tried to make a case that the "forward fuselage"
(outer shell) and the "crew module" remained intact (in one piece)
until water impact. Some experts find that very hard to swallow.

There is a time-delay factor also (as with 107 T/M/video/OEX).
As far as I know, NASA didn't release any "crew cabin" frames
(referred to by Rogers as "forward fuselage") from the key 51-L
camera until mid-to-late April 1986. Those had been "enhanced."

In a later but evidently discontinuous sequence, poorer images
of what were claimed to be the same object were said to have
"trailing umbilicals" for attitude stabilization (not visible in the
better quality frames after fireball exit). To me it makes sense for
people here to question that data disparity, too; but they do not.

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

[Charleston]

"John Maxson" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen Stocker > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Anybody have a brain that's awake?

I type, you decide if my brain is awake.

> I think Tom Whicker does. I try to keep an open mind about
> data disparities, until I have a convincing explanation for them.

I try to keep an open mind until all plausible explanations are examined. I
am ever mindful that the most plausible and likely explanation is often the
real deal, but not always. In fact sometimes it is the least likely
explanation, but rarely.

> Let me switch disasters for an example. From the same forward
> location of RCS flames, three major pieces of separating debris
> flew out of the 51-L fireball. Av Week and Florida TV stations
> identified one of these as the "crew module," while NASA called
> a different piece the "crew cabin." That's a major data disparity!

The photographs have not changed other than some image enhancement which
NASA acknowledges and the news media has seen. In the instance you cite, I
would offer that the photographic data speaks for itself, it is only the
interpretation of the data that is different. Considering the sources of
the disparities you cite, I am hardly surprised.

> NASA refers to the Av Week piece as "forward payload bay."

Citation?

> I don't know of any camera or combination of cameras which
> continuously tracks either piece from their point of fireball exit,
> although NASA tried to make a case that the "forward fuselage"
> (outer shell) and the "crew module" remained intact (in one piece)
> until water impact. Some experts find that very hard to swallow.

I have viewed a lot of the photography, the pieces are tracked fairly easily
if you digitize the images.

> There is a time-delay factor also (as with 107 T/M/video/OEX).
> As far as I know, NASA didn't release any "crew cabin" frames
> (referred to by Rogers as "forward fuselage") from the key 51-L
> camera until mid-to-late April 1986. Those had been "enhanced."

Correct.

> In a later but evidently discontinuous sequence, poorer images
> of what were claimed to be the same object were said to have
> "trailing umbilicals" for attitude stabilization (not visible in the
> better quality frames after fireball exit). To me it makes sense for
> people here to question that data disparity, too; but they do not.

I think it has to do with the fact that the forward fuselage hardware that
sunk was all found in one location in 90 feet of water. The hardware
recovered was consistent with the photography, etc..

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC