"Herb Schaltegger" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

Facts:

1. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have expressed an interest
in
my genuine offer to share telemetry which I described as "nauseating". I
did not even get a simple question back as to which telemetry I was
referring.

Perhaps if you posted excerpts (here directly, or via a link to
something specific on your site) along with an analysis of any
significance (e.g., why it is "nauseating"), you might draw some
serious interest.

The data would not fit here well and any subsequent posts would make it
become difficult to read. I will post the raw "as received" STS 51-L SRB
chamber pressure data in its entirety on my website
www.challengerdisaster.info tonight. Any serious comments would be
appreciated. I am willing to discuss my concerns about that data and why I
find it "nauseating" as long as anyone wants to discuss it in a serious
manner.

2. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have offered any evidence
that the smoke to which I refer in videos on my website is "stuff" which
"shows up on every Shuttle launch" as suggested by Pat Flannery in the
following quote from an earlier post.

"That stuff coming off the side of the tank, and falling into the area
behind the ET isn't related to the SRB problem, it shows up on every
Shuttle launch; it's either some sort of venting from the ET or frost
falling off of its exterior surface."

Interesting given the 113 launches to date. I have seen some visual
evidence of nominal ET offgassing on numerous flights but only a few
flights
remotely resemble the 51-L smoke anomaly post T + 10 seconds.

Have you correlated the visual phenomena with ambient temperature,
pressure and relative humidity?

No, nor did NASA during its investigation into the disaster.

The "smoke" on your video clip looks
a lot more like condensed water vapor (e.g., a contrail forming from
ice shards shed by the ET flash-evaporating and immediately
recondensing/freezing in the cold, dry air that day), than true smoke,
at least to me, especially given the way the rest of the video
appeared to have contrast heightened.

I suppose one should ask him or herself what the smoke is supposed to look
like after the initial o-ring leak? At what point does that black smoke
leaking from a dynamically vibrating joint, transition from the products of
incomplete rubber o-ring combustion, to the pressurized SRB propellant gases
and fire. I believe the o-rings and associated grease and putty have a very
short/finite life expectancy when exposed to 5,900 degree Fahrenheit
temperatures at 950 pounds per square inch pressure (1 atmospehere). One
might also ask how NASA film experts ascertained (if they even did so) when
the o-ring combustion was finished so that any subsequent SRB joint leakage
could be properly identified as a leak of the bright SRB gases, smoke, and
eventually fire, everyone normally sees during a launch (out of the nozzles
of course). Again, exactly how long does one look for black smoke? Where
is this discussed in any engineering detail in the PC report? It is not
enough IMHO to state the joint was likely clogged with a chunk of putty and
then ignore or kiss off as vapor what we can see on M-2 and M-3--withholding
M-2 and M-3 from the Presidential Commission entirely, and from the public
until I made a FOIA request BTW.

This is
important given that I have yet to see a recovered ET other than 51-L to
determine what if any anomalies existed on those remotely similar
flights.

The STS Mission Data and In-Flight Anomalies List (a/k/a the "Green
Book" - I don't have my 1991-version handy for the NASA publication
number) would have detailed descriptions of any anomalies; from that
you could form FOIA requests for post-flight inspection photos and
test data of the ET segments if you found any correlation.

The PC report discussed these issues in some detail on flights prior to STS
51-L except for STS 51-J. The ASAP annual reports have discussed various
potential SRB leak and pressure deviation issues since STS 51-L (mostly
associated with the nozzles).

The ET of course is not recovered and that was my point. Other than STS
51-L (partial recovery), an ET has never been recovered and only a few have
ever been photographed. None of that photography was at a resolution that
would detect small tank leaks which leaves leak detection up to hydrogen
depletion sensors coupled with ullage pressure deviations.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston SC