In sci.space.policy John Maxson wrote:
snip
Thanks, this is the first clear explanation of your theories I have seen.
I apologise for any comments I may have made earlier due to being unable
to find any earlier explanation (despite around a couple of hours of googling
at one point).


The terminal LH2 leaks were at the base of the left booster. It became
super-cooled during prelaunch scrubs. A thrust imbalance resulted. That
caused a right-aft leak in the hydrogen tank at lift-off, later aggravated
by

How do you reconcile this with
http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch4.htm#4.75

Which gives the strut closest to failure at liftoff somewhere around
40% of it's maximum load.?


5000-plus degree heat from continuous R-Aft RCS firings at 59 seconds.
The pre-explosion chamber pressures of the two boosters (relative to
each other and to their respective lift-off pressures) were to be expected.

NASA could not identify the key piece of lower booster debris by serial
number, or by *any other* of NASA's standard identification methods.

The Rogers Report admits that no direct view exists of the location from
which black smoke at lift-off and an assumed burnthrough at 59 seconds
originated. Live launch-day video refutes NASA's "burnthrough" copies.
Congressional subpoena of the originals should lead to credible closure.

Do you believe that the rogers report was just sloppy, driven by
pressure to get back to flights, or was intentionally covering up evidence?
If the latter, why?

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
"Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set him on fire, and he's warm
for the rest of his life" -- Terry Pratchett-Jingo