Three Questions for Challenger's 18th Anniversary

In this photograph from the north, which post-explosion SRB contrail
appears to have the greater altitude?

http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Five.html

What light does this photo shed on Jon Berndt's repeated and now
formalized allegations as to the SRBs' relative exit-trajectories?

In conjunction with the Castglance video, does the sequence of photos
available at Sullivan strengthen or weaken a conclusion that the
north-exiting SRB traveled further downrange under more adverse
conditions, hence proving that it could not have been the SRB with the
lower thrust?

John Maxson - www.mission51l.com

john_thomas_maxson wrote:

In this photograph from the north, which post-explosion SRB contrail
appears to have the greater altitude?

http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Five.html



Wow John, the SRBs just hit each other!!! So, the answer to your first
question is neither, because they're at the same altitude.

;-( Craig Fink ;-(

Craig Fink wrote in message hlink.net...
john_thomas_maxson wrote:

In this photograph from the north, which post-explosion SRB contrail
appears to have the greater altitude?

http://rjsullivan.com/chllngr/Five.html

Wow John, the SRBs just hit each other!!! So, the answer to your first
question is neither, because they're at the same altitude.

No doubt you'd also have us believe that bats love sunlight. Is this
a 'space' science-group or a 'flat-earth' group?

Didn't NASA's tracking cameras convince you that the higher contrail
in this photo has to be the one nearer to the Sullivan camera at
fireball exit?

I suspect that one or more of the other Sullivan photos are giving you
a problem with one or both of my other two questions.

Three questions.....ok

Is a photo a good reference for determining relative altitude?

Does Berndt's (now a formal alligator) scenario rest on a photograph, or on
other findings?

Is the Castglance video the only source of data to determine the distance
that each booster travelled? If these distances were not observed or
measured by some other independent means, then the info is not available.

If we stipulate that each of the facts that you support is true, the higher
altitude, longer flight, and so on, it still does not move us further along
toward supporting your deductions that a damaged SRB could not have flown
higher and farther, or that since it flew higher and farther it was
undamaged. (Replying to one of your posts requires the respondent to engage
in all sorts of verbal contortions.)

Look, how about you just be satisfied that you're right and that the rest of
us are fools, ok? We can deal with it.

Kent Betts wrote:
Three questions.....ok

Is a photo a good reference for determining relative altitude?

In conjunction with other optics, one photo may very well serve as a
good reference.

Does Berndt's (now a formal alligator) scenario rest on a photograph, or on
other findings?

Maybe he's looked at some X-rays which we don't know about:

"When the SRBs were suddenly 'liberated' from the
stack, the left SRB (in the gospel according to St.
Jon) was seen to angle off towards a lower
trajectory - EXACTLY what would be expected ..."

(Berndt is referring to the SRB which exited to the south.)

Is the Castglance video the only source of data to determine the distance
that each booster travelled?

No, it definitely is not.

Kent Betts wrote:

If we stipulate that each of the facts that you support is true, the higher
altitude, longer flight, and so on, it still does not move us further along
toward supporting your deductions that a damaged SRB could not have flown
higher and farther, or that since it flew higher and farther it was
undamaged.

If you truly believe you have a convincing argument with this, you must
be a green lawyer, not a capable and experienced aerospace engineer.

I've never known anyone in his or her right mind to stipulate to "and so
on." If you'd like to list all of the aero-factors which I've brought
up (including a blunted nose-cone due to deployed pilot and drogue
chutes), maybe we could come to terms.

This is not a general question of "damaged" vs. "undamaged," but rather
a specific question of whether there was a substantial pre-explosion
"O-ring burnthrough" between the right SRB's aft segments.

John Maxson wrote:

If you'd like to list all of the aero-factors which I've brought
up (including a blunted nose-cone due to deployed pilot and drogue
chutes), maybe we could come to terms.

(God, why am I doing this?)

And, Mr. Maxson, what exactly are YOUR qualifications to discuss
aerodynamics at all, let alone high-speed compressible fluid dynamics of a
rapidly-disintegrating STS stack?

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

John Maxson wrote:

If you'd like to list all of the aero-factors which I've brought
up (including a blunted nose-cone due to deployed pilot and drogue
chutes), maybe we could come to terms.

(God, why am I doing this?)

It's probably because you find the topic of this thread (and its
presentation/development thus far) more intellectually and
professionally challenging than this month's policy run.

And, Mr. Maxson, what exactly are YOUR qualifications to discuss
aerodynamics at all, let alone high-speed compressible fluid dynamics of a
rapidly-disintegrating STS stack?

The paragraph you responded to was a request for acknowledgement of
facts I've been able to point out here in the past, as a result of my
experience in test, guidance/control, and launch, among others (e.g., a
thrust imbalance, some 3-D optical coverage, and downrange tumbling).

As usual, you can't get past your sig. Dr. Feynman didn't have that
problem. He began by asking the obvious question, the one NASA ignored.

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote:

John Maxson wrote:

If you'd like to list all of the aero-factors which I've brought
up (including a blunted nose-cone due to deployed pilot and drogue
chutes), maybe we could come to terms.

(God, why am I doing this?)

And, Mr. Maxson, what exactly are YOUR qualifications to discuss
aerodynamics at all, let alone high-speed compressible fluid dynamics of a
rapidly-disintegrating STS stack?

He's never mentioned having any, because the embarrassment would have
further fueled the rapid disintegration of his *hypothesis*, which was
completed some time ago.

Jon

"STS-51L: The Challenger Accident
Conspiracy Theories, Challenger, and Solid Rocket Boosters"
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html

Jon Berndt wrote:
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote:
John Maxson wrote:

If you'd like to list all of the aero-factors which I've brought
up (including a blunted nose-cone due to deployed pilot and drogue
chutes), maybe we could come to terms.

(God, why am I doing this?)

And, Mr. Maxson, what exactly are YOUR qualifications to discuss
aerodynamics at all, let alone high-speed compressible fluid dynamics of a
rapidly-disintegrating STS stack?

He's never mentioned having any, because the embarrassment would have
further fueled the rapid disintegration of his *hypothesis*, which was
completed some time ago.

As Dr. Feynman pointed out, it doesn't take a "trained eye" to make
photo observations. It takes integrity to answer the questions which
you and Herbs avoid with groundless personal innuendo or red herrings.

Jon

(Jon (Badly) Burnt, this group's "woulda, coulda, shoulda" apologist for
the Lockheed/Halliburton, Bush/Cheney, and Reagan/Bush atrocities)

"STS-51L: The Challenger Accident
Conspiracy Theories, Challenger, and Solid Rocket Boosters"
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html