"Hiccups," Balettie?

From: Roger Balettie )
Subject: Daniel: Question 70?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2001-03-19 15:30:06 PST


"Daniel" wrote:
Roger, as you know Oversoul, who read the book answered the question for
John Maxson.

No he didn't. He made a "good faith attempt" to promote some of the "way
out there" conspiracy theories presented in the book, but even admitted
himself that he wasn't the person we should be asking. We all thanked him
for his valiant efforts, but the question *remains* unanswered to this day
by either of the two primary addressees.

I do not plan on doing that anymore than I have. Okay?

Q69revA isn't addressed to you.

I don't remember seeing this question.

It was asked by me several times in slightly different variations. This is
the first time I've made a "Big Deal (tm)" out of asking it.

The answer is the latter.

Correct.

I think you are the one who has defended Mr. Nesbitt as
reading *real-time* data.

I suggested it was a possibility that he was looking at data that was still
"valid" when the actual Accident occurred, due to telemetry display latency
in the MCC. I also suggested that "real time data" could also have been the
pre-flight generated trajectory profile, as a function of time, independent
of downlinked telemetry data.

Did I ever suggest that Mr. Nesbitt was reading "real-time" data that never
existed? Of course not... don't be silly.

Of course it is nice to see you admit that it was simply a *script.*

"Admit"? Please read below. You have your facts *severely* in error, and
are claiming a knowledge of Space Shuttle flight operations with which you
are *not* familiar.

I would prefer a little candor on Nesbitt's part. He should have told the
newspaper interviewer the plain truth.

See? *THIS* is why I continue to claim you are promoting a conspiracy.

As far as data drop outs go, you should go back and reread the timeline.

You should re-read my response. Data dropouts happen *ALL THE TIME* and are
usually transient. There are constant minor data "hiccups" that have
nothing to do with total vehicle destruction. They aren't reported...
ever... 'cuz they happen.

They are not mentioned until just after 73 seconds.

73 seconds or 1:11 MET?

What was mentioned was the *total loss* of data, not a transient dropout.

There were other data dropouts too, but NASA and the Roger's
Commission failed to address the issue unless--they wanted to.

Can you *SEE* why we keep telling you to back of the conspiracy theory? You
continue to push it, but then cry "foul" when we point it out to you...

None of the other data drop outs are listed.

See above. They happen all the time and, unless they are permanent (as in
STS 51-L), aren't of any importance.

snippage of lots of conspiratorial theories

I agree. It's just sad that it took you so many posts to make this
*admission.*

What *admission*? You're reading something into nothing, Daniel...

He didn't cave until I posted signed documents from flight controllers
working the launch.

I never "caved", Daniel. It's intellectually deficient of you to claim
otherwise.

I noted that the 1:11 MET reported in the BOOSTER and CAPCOM flight reports
showed their data went static at that time. It was not indicative of the
entire MCC. CAPCOM was watching BOOSTER displays at that point, so it makes
sense that their times would match.

Please knock off the conspiracy accusations. Your credibility is going
downhill fast, if you do.

Roger
=============================
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://members.aol.com/ramjetfdo/