"John Maxson" wrote:
Charleston wrote:
"John Maxson" wrote:
Does the report make lucid mention of an unmatched pair
on 51-L?
Absolutely positively yes.
Assuming you can put up or quote from odd-numbered pages
Why assume that?
in the Appendix at the end of the Flight Operations Report
(which were missing in your initial FOIA response,
They were missing in my initial request as filled by JSC? No, I received
the whole document from JSC and received it fairly promptly, IIRC.. I
copied the whole document twice. Are you suggesting that you don't have
the applicable odd numbered pages and therefore have never read about this
critical fact on the unmatched pair? Now, you have since posted (yesterday)
that you do in fact have the pages and know there was an unmatched pair.
Please explain what you mean because I am not finding this line of
discussion helpful, productive or of any real value at all.
and which
therefore I may not have seen yet),
We have discussed those details at length.
I take it that your issue is
that both the right hand (JSC's Kranz, et al) and the left hand
(MSFC's Lee, et al) were in a position to offer the PC a more
plausible explanation for some of the early differences in Pc.
I believe you have figured out the statistical chicanery on the SRB thrust
data pulled off by NASA. Either that or you are real close. I thought you
knew it all along. It is a most critical part of any real analysis of the
SRB thrust data and goes to the heart of NASA's credibility on the entire
issue of SRB thrust data on Mission 51-L. Once you see it the door opens
and you can see that behind that door are even more deceptions.
You apparently have other FOIA records which make you think
that Lee should have offered the PC a half-explanation, *based on
unmatched pairs*,
His mention of the *five inch motor* gave him away. He stopped himself when
he realized what he had said.
for why the right SRB's early chamber pressure
was dangerously higher than the left SRB's, perhaps from about
t+1.5 seconds through t+20 seconds.
The right SRB was higher than the left as far out as 50 seconds at least at
some points, IIRC. Now
it is interesting that you mention a specific timeframe above.
(The PC found that *KSC*
knew about this unmatched pair, but the PC never tied that to Pc.)
I have reviewed a lot of data about the SRB midweight configuration (Dennis
Jenkins needs to read the PC report Volume II and correct the third edition
of his book on that issue. The associated Engineering Change Proposal
(ECP), but never seen anything substantive about the term unmatched pair in
the report itself.
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appk.htm
Page K-13
"A.5. Design and Production Control
The MTI configuration control system was reviewed (Referenced Appendix C,
Section CC). This system was formulated upon the contractual requirements
(MSFC document MMI 8040.12) and is documented by the NASA-controlled SRM
Configuration Management Plan and subordinate MTI policies and procedures.
The Class I and Class II control systems were addressed; the membership of
the MTI Configuration Control Board (CCB) was defined and its authority was
addressed. A summary level explanation was provided for each Class I (NASA
approval required) authorized change. It was noted that the change (ECP SRM
0995) [K14] establishing the midweight case configuration was certified only
by similarity. However, the midweight assembly does not represent a
significant redesign, and since its loads and case reactions are between the
two extremes demonstrated, verification by similarity was deemed
appropriate. The midweight SRM utilizes an aft casting segment identical to
that of a standard weight motor with lightweight center and standard weight
forward casting segments of a lightweight SRM configuration. The resulting
load changes were assessed, and it was determined that they were within
previously demonstrated experience; therefore, specific testing was not
required."
"Finding
5. A change was made to the SRM stack configuration that created the
midweight configuration; i.e., a combination of standard and lightweight
cases. This change was qualified by similarity.
Conclusion
5. The midweight configuration, which was not flown on 51-L, did not
represent a significant redesign. Its loads and case reactions were between
the two extremes demonstrated, which were the standard weight and
lightweight configurations. Each of these configurations were a verified by
analyses and ground testing. Therefore, at the time, verification by
similarity of the midweight case design was acceptable. The effort to
requalify the SRM for flight must include sufficient analyses and ground
tests to adequately prove that the redesign of the motor as an entity, and
its various components, will satisfy all CEI specification requirements, and
operate safely over the total flight regime."
I have already mentioned the DAR.
--
Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC