Sad turn

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
Daniel (or should I say, Denial):

I am sorry that you have taken this turn for the worse. My contacting
Pappy
really seems to have hit you guys hard.

I will walk you through some questions and answers you need to address to
recover any credibility about the RCS you may have. If you can reconcile
what Pappy told you and now me, with regard to the SRBs great, if not then
things did not happen the way everyone thought most notably you.

As Pappy told me yesterday morning "I will be the first one to admit my
pencil has an eraser." Obviously you use a pen Jon. BTW, please leave the
poor guy alone. He does not want to be dragged into this mess. He told you
what he rememebered and you can't handle the parachute aspects of what he
told you. Let it go. Deal with what he told you.

As always, the most obvious pieces
of evidence have always been right out in front of you, but for reasons
almost unknown you have to sensationalize everything, write a book that
somehow tries to vindicate you or your father as the only ones who know
"The
Truth", etc..

You are the one with the website dedicated to my Father not me and I am his
son. You Jon, are the one obsessed. You choose the facts that suit your
needs to vindicate your employer. I am only driven by the truth whatever
the Hell it is, wherever the Hell it is, even if it is at variance with my
own family members. When $5,000.00+ you have spent seeking that truth via
FOIA, you can talk out somewhere other than your ass. You have only the
videos of 51-L that I chose to give to you. I am the one that has
repeatedly explained via the Roger's report, "new" fact after new fact to
you. In our relationship you have been the one primarily asking the
questions.

The lack of humility in all you Maxsons is really incredible.

One thing I have noted about this group is that there no abundance of
humility here. In fact the word can not be used here without a hearty
laugh. This an ego driven, one upmanship, "my **** don't stink", usenet
group. Many here are obsessed with protecting NASA. On the contrary, I
have admitted my errors here, as have a few others. Most never do, they
just shut up or plonk you when they are proven wrong. Another tactic you
and others here use is to scheme by private e-mail on how to best destroy
someone, how to get to them, it is all really quite sick. You have been
involved in that sickness right up to your eyeballs, with me, and *others*
by private e-mail. Some on this group even "educate" new posters by private
e-mail, explaining who is good and who is bad. How very helpful of the
group:-(

The truth is that something in the nose of the orbiter blew up with a
reddish color during/after the disintegration.

Look in the mirror Jon, you are the one in denial. I am going to rub your
nose in your ignorance about the crew compartment real good with alist of
facts you can try to rebut.

The RCS jets did not/do not fire during first stage.

The RCS jets do what they are commanded to do by the flight software. There
is physical evidence that they fired in the lower atmosphere--below 50,000
feet which they should never be allowed to do. They don't do well in the
atmospehere. I referred you to the recovered Niobium splatters at the aft
end of the orbiter where the aft RCS thrusters are located (not the front
ones BTW). Now look at you, you are trying to create a nonexistent forward
RCS explosion to make your scenario work! You will create a forward RCS
explosion that did not happen, for which there is no physical evidence, just
to support the idea that there was no aft RCS problem for which there is
evidence. That is obssesive. More importantly your theory can not be
proven by the evidence recovered by NASA, et al. Your denial in the
presence of physically recovered evidence is just plain silly. Unless you
personally reviewed and understood the 51-L flight software load, to make
claims about what it did or did not contain and do is pure speculation on
your part. The factual evidence is what is should be worthy of real
consideration.

You can see evidence of thruster firings in the ascent photography. Did you
know that the only major question the Congressional Report on Challenger
left open was whether or not those right aft thrusters fired during 51-L's
ascent? That fact was left forever unanswered by the House Report. Why?
Because NASA never did give the House what they requested. All of the aft
RCS telemetry Jon. While it is true that the House concluded that such a
thruster firing would not have made a difference, they consulted no one but
themselves and their aids to draw such a conclusion. There have been other
software error driven unexpected RCS firings. One such occurence happened
on STS 79 during reentry, IIRC.

It was not physically possible for the SRBs to
cross in the cloud given their orientation and body rates at 73.3 seconds
and considering their position, orientation and body rates as seen on film
from several angles (thanks to *you*) as they left the cloud less than a
second later. Not physically possible. But you guys are too hard headed to
see that.

I'll address some more facts on this issue soon enough.

And, the stupidest oversight of all: the presence of the breach flare
prior
to the disintegration and after the disintegration at the same spot on the
same SRB - proves that the SRBs did not cross. Breach flares don't shift
SRBs in less than a second.

Save the above for another thread.

Daniel

In article wEtYa.63335$zy.14505@fed1read06,
"Charleston" wrote:

The RCS jets did not/do not fire during first stage.

The RCS jets do what they are commanded to do by the flight software. There
is physical evidence that they fired in the lower atmosphere--below 50,000
feet which they should never be allowed to do.

Prove it or shut up.

They don't do well in the
atmospehere. I referred you to the recovered Niobium splatters at the aft
end of the orbiter where the aft RCS thrusters are located (not the front
ones BTW). Now look at you, you are trying to create a nonexistent forward
RCS explosion to make your scenario work!

To what do you attribute the plainly-visible burnt orange/red
hydrazine-nitrogen tetroxide vapor cloud visible at the forward end of
the fireball? Call it an explosion or call it an uncontrolled high-rate
combustion or burn but the effects were plainly visible.

You will create a forward RCS
explosion that did not happen,

"Explosion", "uncontrolled combustion", "po-tay-toe," "po-tah-toe,"
let's call the whole thing off. Daniel, you're being absurd and
throwing up strawmen that have nothing, nada, zip, zilch to do with
whether the SRBs were even CAPABLE of crossing in the fireball based on
the rates observed (via telemetry) prior to the breakup of the stack,
the forces generated due to combustion and observations after the
breakup.

for which there is no physical evidence,

There is video evidence of hydragine-nitrogen tetroxide combustion.
Tell us, Daniel, when the forward RCS components were recovered, were
they intact? Were tanks unruptured? What propellant quantities
remained? Were valves closed and sealed? Was tubing intact?

just
to support the idea that there was no aft RCS problem for which there is
evidence. That is obssesive. More importantly your theory can not be
proven by the evidence recovered by NASA, et al. Your denial in the
presence of physically recovered evidence is just plain silly. Unless you
personally reviewed and understood the 51-L flight software load, to make
claims about what it did or did not contain and do is pure speculation on
your part.

Have you reviewed that software load? If you have, prove it and
demonstrate the flaws you claim.

From Vol I, Ch. 4 of the Rogers Commission Report:

"All temperature and pressure transducers active during ascent for the
reaction control system were reviewed, including thruster chamber
pressure, leak temperature, line temperature, propellant tank, helium
tank and propellant line transducers. Nothing was found that could have
contributed to the accident."

With regard to your claims of unmatched booster segments (and presumably
thrust differentials between the boosters which you imply would result),
read on:

"Propellant

"An examination of propellant characteristics and flight data was
accomplished to determine if any anomalous conditions were present in
the STS 51-L right Solid Rocket Motor. Propellant cracking and
propellant mean bulk temperatures were evaluated.

"Historically, the propellant family used in the Solid Rocket Motor
(TP-H1148) has exhibited good mechanical properties and an absence of
grain structural problems. Should a crack occur, [ 57 ] however, the
effects would be evident by changes in chamber pressure. Shortly after
lift off, the STS 51-L right Solid Rocket Motor chamber pressure was 22
pounds per square inch higher than that of the left solid. This would
correlate to a postulated radial crack through the grain spanning a
90-degree, pie-shaped wedge of the solid. However, with a crack of this
nature, the chamber pressure would have remained high for approximately
60 seconds. Telemetry shows that the right Solid Rocket Motor chamber
pressure did not remain high past 20-24 seconds and, therefore, the
existence of a propellant crack was ruled out.

"Propellant mean bulk temperature calculations were made using the
ambient temperature over the two-week period prior to launch. The lowest
bulk temperature experienced was 57 degrees Fahrenheit on the day of the
launch. This was 17 degrees Fahrenheit above the minimum specified.

"Based on this assessment and subscale lot-acceptance motor-firing
evaluations, it is improbable that propellant anomalies contributed to
the STS 51-L accident."

_Id._

The factual evidence is what is should be worthy of real
consideration.

You can see evidence of thruster firings in the ascent photography.

No one sees such evidence but you and your father. Does that not clue
you in to something?

Did you
know that the only major question the Congressional Report on Challenger
left open was whether or not those right aft thrusters fired during 51-L's
ascent? That fact was left forever unanswered by the House Report. Why?
Because NASA never did give the House what they requested. All of the aft
RCS telemetry Jon.

Doesn't your father claim to possess this through his FOIA requests? If
he really and truly does, it would be elementary to post it, either here
as text or if it's converted to .pdf or another format, to a binary
group or on his website. I know he's claimed it's too expensive or too
time consuming or some other excuse; fine, convert ONE PAGE of this data
to an appropriate format and post it, just to demonstrate that you/he do
possess what you claim.

While it is true that the House concluded that such a
thruster firing would not have made a difference, they consulted no one but
themselves and their aids to draw such a conclusion.

What do you claim would have happened if a few hundred pounds of lateral
force was applied to the stack (which has significant control authority
of its own due to SRB gimbaling, thanks very much). Stop leaving
pregnant-pause questions; if you believe such RCS firings actually
happened and contributed to the accident, show what would happen if such
firing did occur. Tell us, Daniel: what would happen?

There have been other
software error driven unexpected RCS firings. One such occurence happened
on STS 79 during reentry, IIRC.

Proof? Or another unsubstantiated statement?

It was not physically possible for the SRBs to
cross in the cloud given their orientation and body rates at 73.3 seconds
and considering their position, orientation and body rates as seen on film
from several angles (thanks to *you*) as they left the cloud less than a
second later. Not physically possible. But you guys are too hard headed to
see that.

I'll address some more facts on this issue soon enough.

Why not now? The SRB rates data is easily available.

And, the stupidest oversight of all: the presence of the breach flare
prior
to the disintegration and after the disintegration at the same spot on the
same SRB - proves that the SRBs did not cross. Breach flares don't shift
SRBs in less than a second.

Save the above for another thread.

Why? The photos are available from multiple angles and sources,
including commercial TV broadcast video (video I saw the day of the
accident, BTW).

Daniel



--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
"Heisenberg might have been here."
~ Anonymous

The frustum's lanyards, from the left drogue parachute, leads
to the conclusion (according to Papadakis, quoted by Berndt)
that the boosters crossed in the 51-L fireball "as determined
by *serial* number" on said lanyards. [Emphasis added.]

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


Herb Schaltegger wrote in message
...

Prove it or shut up.

snipped long, rambling, shysterly baiting based on weasel-worded
statements from the Rogers Summary

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message
...

From Vol I, Ch. 4 of the Rogers Commission Report:

"All temperature and pressure transducers active during ascent
for the reaction control system were reviewed, including thruster
chamber pressure, leak temperature, line temperature, propellant
tank, helium tank and propellant line transducers. Nothing was
found that could have contributed to the accident."

Where is that telemetry in the report, and why did NASA *fail* to
look at the valve commands? The above is an unsworn statement,
equivalent to: "We at NASA looked at all film from Ponce de Leon,
but we trusted only Lockheed to see what we saw. Trust us, and
we won't ever let one of these shuttle disasters happen again."

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

Michael Gardner wrote in message
...

A littany of libel, ***plus*** (low drum roll):

X-No-Archive: yes

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

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
In article wEtYa.63335$zy.14505@fed1read06,
"Charleston" wrote:
They don't do well in the
atmospehere. I referred you to the recovered Niobium splatters at the
aft
end of the orbiter where the aft RCS thrusters are located (not the
front
ones BTW). Now look at you, you are trying to create a nonexistent
forward
RCS explosion to make your scenario work!

I guess the humongous ****ing fireball at the nose of the shuttle, clearly
visible in at least two different camera views as the stack broke up, and
the resulting rust-colored stain in the sky, also clearly visible, doesn't
count.

There have been other
software error driven unexpected RCS firings. One such occurence
happened
on STS 79 during reentry, IIRC.

Proof? Or another unsubstantiated statement?

From he

http://members.aol.com/WSNTWOYOU/mainmr.htm

STS-79 Mission report is this file:

http://members.aol.com/RRTWOYOU/F79A.PDF

Here is the relevant passage.

"During entry while performing the first Programmed Test Input (PTI) for DTO
255 - Wraparound DAP Flight Test Verification - unexpected RCS yaw-thruster
firings occurred when there should have been no thruster firings (Flight
Problem STS-79-V-06). Evaluation of the data identified the source of the
unexpected thruster firings as a configuration problem to the flight
software load because of overlapping yaw RCS deadbands. The testing in the
Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory revealed that the same problem
existed for this PTI for the STS-80 mission. A decision was made to change
the procedures to prevent the PTI from starting while operating in the
overlapping deadbands area."

Sounds like a glitch in the software that occurred *during a time when the
RCS is actually used.* Here we are at halftime folks, and the score is
still Universe 10,215,138, Conspiracy Loons 0.

"Charleston" wrote:
The RCS jets do what they are commanded to do by the flight software.

Correct... and they are not commanded to fire during first stage ascent.

If you believe they have otherwise done so, please refer to my previous
questions to you (8/5/2003, approximately 0800 CDT) that remain unanswered,
restated below for clarity:

If you have evidence (MSID-based), please present it.

If you do not have such evidence, please respond as such, so that we may be
clear that your case is based upon visual examination only.

You can see evidence of thruster firings in the ascent photography.

If this is your only "proof" of ascent RCS usage, please state so.

There have been other software error driven unexpected RCS firings. One
such occurence happened on STS 79 during reentry, IIRC.

RCS control during entry *is* expected and is a critical part of the Entry
Guidance software. First Stage Ascent Guidance has no such logic.

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

snip RCS content

I am breaking my response into separate and more content manageable threads.

With regard to your claims of unmatched booster segments (and presumably
thrust differentials between the boosters which you imply would result),
read on:

Sure, but this is just so much reguritated Roger's garbage. Big words?
Yes, but accurate words? See additional comments below.

"Propellant

"An examination of propellant characteristics and flight data was
accomplished to determine if any anomalous conditions were present in
the STS 51-L right Solid Rocket Motor. Propellant cracking and
propellant mean bulk temperatures were evaluated."

Okay, and this addresses the deliberate use of an unmatched SRB pair exactly
how? I see it does not address the use of an unmatched SRB pair does it?
It is just a claim to reflect a concern and apparent effort by NASA to
demonstrate that they reviewed the 51-L SRB propellant characteristics in a
serious and professional manner.

"Historically, the propellant family used in the Solid Rocket Motor
(TP-H1148) has exhibited good mechanical properties and an absence of
grain structural problems. Should a crack occur, [ 57 ] however, the
effects would be evident by changes in chamber pressure. Shortly after
lift off, the STS 51-L right Solid Rocket Motor chamber pressure was 22
pounds per square inch higher than that of the left solid. This would
correlate to a postulated radial crack through the grain spanning a
90-degree, pie-shaped wedge of the solid. However, with a crack of this
nature, the chamber pressure would have remained high for approximately
60 seconds. Telemetry shows that the right Solid Rocket Motor chamber
pressure did not remain high past 20-24 seconds and, therefore, the
existence of a propellant crack was ruled out."

Wow 22 pounds per square inch? Isn't that pretty substantial? I quote you
from the beginning of this post Herb:

"With regard to your claims of unmatched booster segments (and presumably
thrust differentials between the boosters which you imply would result",

Imply? Hell, you just quoted NASA verifying my claim. Thank you, I
appreciate your help;-) Isn't that 22 psi number out of the known database
at the
time 51-L was launched? Why yes it is. I have seen the data on one of my
FOIA requests. It is over 2 sigma high. So NASA does not worry about this
at liftoff? All you have above is excellent evidence that propellant
cracking was a non-issue. It begs the point however. An unmatched SRB
pair, however, does explain the observed thrust differential quite nicely.
Of course there are other more interesting explanations too. Nevertheless
your long quote proves only that there was no propellant crack that would
have self resolved at the SRB forward segment star web time.

"Propellant mean bulk temperature calculations were made using the
ambient temperature over the two-week period prior to launch. The lowest
bulk temperature experienced was 57 degrees Fahrenheit on the day of the
launch. This was 17 degrees Fahrenheit above the minimum specified."

I am not concerned with overall bulk propellant temperature. I am concerned
about the temperature of the propellant which burns at liftoff when there is
a two sigma--22 psi differential. I am concerend about the ignition
transient when something went so horribly wrong with Challenger. Do you see
what I am driving at? Remember the black smoke puffs occurred right after
lift-off. The smoke puffs did not occur at the mean or median point of the
propellant burn did they? The innermost solid propellant at the open core
is directly exposed to the effects of cold, right? Why didn't NASA talk
about the temperature of that propellant Herb? My dad certainly did in his
book. Why because he knew something we did not! All other SRB propellant
is insulated either by other insulation or thick rubber inhibitor. So I
wonder why NASA focused only on the mean bulk propellant temperature during
the investigation instead of the much more important extreme or outlier.
Afterall wasn't the extreme data point in this instance obviously more
diurectly related to the time immediately preceding the purported SRB leak?
Pretty lame engineering review isn't it? Whenever you see statistics focus
on the measurement of central trendency when one should be in fact looking
for significant outliers you should immediately be on guard. When I first
read the passage you quoted above, I was immediately taken with this bizarre
approach by NASA. Of course that was before I learned of the unmatched SRB
pair.

"Based on this assessment and subscale lot-acceptance motor-firing
evaluations, it is improbable that propellant anomalies contributed to
the STS 51-L accident."

Now that is a most excellent caveat. Thanks for showing the group this
important false analysis by NASA. Shouldn't any rational evaluation of the
probability that a propellant anomaly contributed to the cause of the
accident be addressed by examining the facts surrounding the use of an
unmatched SRB pair, actual flight performance, and recovered
hardware for burn back review? Why would one base such a conclusion on
little subscale 5 inch motors?? They did not fly and cause an accident did
they? Yet there is no mention of the use of an unmatched SRB pair, is there
Herb?

Assuming for the moment that I am correct and NASA used an unmatched SRB
pair, would you agree that failing to address and discuss such use an issue
would be grossly negligent and deceptive at the bare minimum? I would dare
say it is possibly criminal. Especially when lies under oath occurred to
hide the facts. Shouldn't the CAIB be advised of such deception on a prior
accident so that they know what they are up against now?

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...

I'm glad you finally see that. It's what I've been telling you. The RCS
jets, however, are not commanded during first stage. The "effectors" that
are used during first stage include the SSME and SRB gimbals. The
aerosurfaces are moved for load relief, etc. No RCS jets are *commanded*
during first stage.


Question on this Jon, in a normal flight you are 100% correct.

But as the SSME's evidently initiated a shutdown when they got a low fuel
signal, is it possible the flight software would have gone into an abort
mode to try to correct for the increasingly off axis stack, or that it had
began dumping the RCS fuel?

(I haven't seen then telemetry to know the details for sure.)

Note, I can't see any of the above happening until maybe a second or some
before the breakup. So I'm curious.

(and before anyone tags me as a Maxson supporter, let me state, I don't
believe in any fireball crossing or the like.)


There is physical evidence that they fired in the lower
atmosphere--below
50,000
feet which they should never be allowed to do. They don't do well in
the
atmospehere.

You need some education on the RCS jets. First, they do fine in the
atmosphere - some RCS jets are used down to 45,000' in a nominal entry.
Second, in the case of a some TAL aborts when a propellant dump is done
OMS
propellant is dumped (via an OMS burn) and if an interconnect is commanded
the RCS jets burn fuel as well. The OMS engines I believe are only used
above 80K', but the RCS jets can dump as long as is required - I've been
told right on down to sea level. In fact, I believe the RCS jets were even
ground tested.


For those playing at home (since I'm sure both Jon and Daniel are aware) the
problem with something like the RCS firing deep in the atmosphere is they
are optmized for vacuum and as such are extremely ineffective the higher the
outside pressure (I believe the venier can't even fire at all.)

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message

Question on this Jon, in a normal flight you are 100% correct.

But as the SSME's evidently initiated a shutdown when they got a low fuel
signal, is it possible the flight software would have gone into an abort
mode to try to correct for the increasingly off axis stack, or that it had
began dumping the RCS fuel?

At that time, and currently, I don't believe there was/is any automatic
abort mode. Work is being done to give the crew better "situational
awareness" during ascent and entry within the Cockpit Avionics Upgrade. This
involves providing a display that shows available abort sites at any time
during ascent/entry. The crew still has to manually select the abort
mode/site, but in the case of a communications loss, the crew will be able
to make quick decisions without having to fumble through cue cards.

For those playing at home (since I'm sure both Jon and Daniel are aware)
the
problem with something like the RCS firing deep in the atmosphere is they
are optmized for vacuum and as such are extremely ineffective the higher
the
outside pressure (I believe the venier can't even fire at all.)

Not sure about the vernier. However, I believe there was a study done at
some point recently that considered using aft facing jets to add performance
in the case of an engine out at liftoff. It was obvious pretty quickly that
the performance gain would be minimal, but the important point to note here
was that the altitude did not seem to be a concern with firing the jets.
From what I understand, some think that firing the RCS jets under 20k' is
not a good idea, while others say that it's not a concern. There's not a
whole lot of information that I've been able to locate to support either
camp.

Jon