Burnt Barbecue (Texas-Style)

======================================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: A Challenge to Jon Berndt
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-05 07:55:55 PST


Jon, you've made many claims about your prowess in simulation.
You've also demonstrated your ability to use a scanner to place
Av Week images on your website. In addition, you've made a
lot of claims about your superiority as an aerospace engineer.

I don't believe that you are capable (even with help from Jorge,
Roger, Daniel, and Henry) of sitting down with paper and pencil,
drawing out top, side, and end (frontal) views for the path you
claim the 51-L boosters took through the fireball (ie., the right
SRB swinging out at the bottom and nosing into the LOX tank,
exiting as shown by the totality of NASA's photos), and then
placing those three engineering drawings on the web to prove
your point (that there was no 'before vs. after' transposition of
the 51-L boosters. Put them up or shut up; that's how I see it.

JTM
=======================================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: A Challenge to Jon Berndt
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-05 11:41:48 PST


Promises, promises! Can't even scan in three sketches?
(You could handle the scanning, not the sketches.)

Jon Berndt
wrote in message ...

I've actually been considering this for some time. Actually something
better
than this. All the tools are there on the web as open source projects.
I've
got the 3D model (www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/shuttlepov.html) - there are
probably
better ones out there. I've got a flight dynamics model (not really meant
for orbital flight simulation at all, but it would suffice for short
periods
of atmospheric flight) at http://jsbsim.sf.net and www.flightgear.org.
I've
got a copy of digital DATCOM to help in determining the aero coefficients.
There's the open source ray tracing software at www.povray.org, and Dave's
targa animator to splice the pictures together into a movie. Given the
photographic evidence it ought to be able to put together a movie of what
happened. However, I am almost sure I recollect this being done before by
someone related to the investigation. I also have four small children to
deal with, a house that is being partly renovated/repaired, the role of
supporting the simulation software that bears my initials, as well as a
regular day job in a simulation job related to shuttle flight. I may take
you up on that challenge, as I planned on doing it anyways, but it will be
on my own schedule, if at all. Until then, I'll post insights I have
whether
you like it or not.

My, my, doesn't life get complicated when you have to
put your money where your mouth is?

JTM
====================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: A Challenge to Jon Berndt
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-05 21:30:08 PST


"john_thomas_maxson" wrote in

For those who have not read my book, I would just like
to say something here. Amidst all the deplorable clamor
about failure to put my book on the web (with all of it's
many illustrations), no one has ever commented about
my years of living below the poverty level. No one has
ever commented about how (unlike the Rogers Summary)
every one of my book's images is annotated as to time
and camera number (with maps giving all their positions).

I have said repeatedly that my book is non-profit and
that I don't care if anyone in the group buys it. I know
better than anyone else what the interest is in what I
post, and *by far* the majority of it comes from those
who never post. They just enjoy reading about our
space shuttle. Give them a chance to cut through the
flak, and it might help your jobs. (I'm retired.)

You've apparently spent an awful lot of time, effort, and money in preparing
this book. There is probably a lot of good information in it. But, I think
perhaps one of the roots of the problem is that the title, your web page,
and your marketing approach dooms it to failure. If it was devoted to
presenting the information objectively and without pretense [instead of the
extreme prejudice you reveal quite blatantly, here] I wonder if you might
have a moderately successful book on your hands. As it is, the accusations
of cover-up and conspiracy (rightly or wrongly) make it *appear* like any
other sensational book of the week, and you've lost credibility before
anyone even gives you a chance.

Jon
=================================

Ask yourself, *whose* "extreme prejudice?"

=================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Book review, Pt. II
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-23 19:00:04 PST


Wow. What a day for s.s.s. I just got home shortly ago and finished dinner.

I've been thinking about the review I am in the process of writing. This is
difficult to do on one hand because I know how much time and money and hard
work JTM has invested in this. And I am sure it is all for what he believes
is a good cause. I admire his tenacity on one hand, but on the other hand I
have felt as though there has been little *give* in the "give and take" that
has been ongoing for so long; so little acceptance for views that are
different than those presented in "the book" (little "b"). Well, the shoe is
on the other foot, now.

Overall, there is an analogy that comes to my mind when I read through this
book. There is an idea presented that is very captivating to all, but it
seems fundamentally flawed. We've all heard about Area 51. There are many
who believe an alien spacecraft crashed there (or was it Roswell?) some time
ago. A whole culture is built up around that belief. But the fundamental
flaw is this: would a race that has the unbelievable technological prowess
to travel perhaps hundreds of light years arrive here only to smack into
some nondescript rest area off the highway?

Likewise, I am struck by the small details that are woven together in a tale
of intrigue and deception. For all I know at times I could be reading a Tom
Clancy novel except ... it's no Tom Clancy novel. For instance, the author
states that he was gathering signatures for a petition at the Fashion Square
Mall in Orlando. He further states that mall security there asked him to
leave, advising him to perhaps try the Colonial Mall. "As I walked over
there I was shadowed by a helicopter hovering overhead. It was a scene that
would often be repeated during my coming crusade." Fascinating reading, to
be sure. An exaggeration? We didn't live it. I'll never look at a helicopter
the same way...

[cool. as i write this i just watched one of my two four month old boys roll
over onto his stomach for the first time]

Back to the launch. The book provides a lot of details of the authors
impressions of the launch. Some of those impressions were surprising to me.
One such example describes what some of the cameras recorded as the stack
began its roll program: "... cameras ... revealed hydrogen expulsion and a
bright fire below the aft dome." I looked at the supplied pictures. I've
seen the videos. I, personally, saw no evidence of "fire". However, there is
a phenomena that can be seen during each launch. You can duplicate this
effect by simply lifting the lid off a pot of boiling Idaho potatoes. The
steam follows the lid. Or lift the lid off a barbecue next time you're
grilling some Texas sized steaks. The smoke follows the lid. It's a great
illustration of the aerodynamic phenomena of entrainment and recirculation.

A couple of pages later there is a picture showing the visible manifestation
of a shock wave traveling over the surface of the orbiter and SRBs. Many of
us have seen a similar phenomena at airshows. Condensation can be coaxed out
of the air in some wonderful patterns about aircraft. The caption on this
particular picture is "Unusual Effects (M-4 at t+48)".

As I read there are further revelations of "disinformation", creative
enhancements, and "misrepresented selected optics from several cameras". Who
knew? One such example was an underexposed ("grossly underexposed") view
from E207 at t+59 (*just* prior to when the flare is visible at the aft
lower RSRB attachment). The book claims that "... at throttleup there was a
large orange glow on the right RCS stinger". I found it interesting that the
author would describe what was obviously the SRB plume reflection off the
RCS stinger as an orange "glow" which gives the impression that the RCS
stinger itself was the source of the glow.

More to come shortly ...
===============================================
===============================================
From: john_thomas_maxson )
Subject: Book review, Pt. II
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-24 05:36:55 PST


You and the maggot won't gain from this abortion, Burnt.

Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

One such example describes what some of the cameras recorded
as the stack began its roll program: "... cameras ... revealed hydrogen
expulsion and a bright fire below the aft dome." I looked at the supplied
pictures. I've seen the videos. I, personally, saw no evidence of "fire".

Not even with all that black smoke coming off the aft dome?
Even children know that "where there's smoke, there's fire."

A couple of pages later there is a picture showing the visible
manifestation
of a shock wave traveling over the surface of the orbiter and SRBs.

One described as being abnormally *long*, among other things.

JTM
=================================
=================================
From: Jon Berndt )
Subject: Book review, Pt. III
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 2002-05-23 19:30:03 PST


The period just before the disintegration of the stack is described in much
detail, as well. Explanations are provided for SRB motions and effects. I
found a couple of lines herevery interesting. The book describes the SRBs,
having at first only partially separated, stressing and severing the aft
attach band. Then, "... the orbiter's tail swung around to the north
somewhat (Figures 90-93)." I looked at Figures 90-93 to find a very bright
series of plumes but no indication of what they were supposed to show. The
most interesting thing about those pictures, however, was the caption. These
photos were sequentially time-stamped from t+73.20 to 73.33. I wondered how
much the tail of the orbiter could swing around in 13/100 seconds.
Immediately following that, there was a further revelation I had not been
aware of: "There had been insufficient main engine power for a return trip
to Kennedy, and even the fast sep was failing". I went back a few pages and
reread to find that the author claims that a fast sep was in progress at
t+73.3 seconds. I question whether this can be supported in any way
whatsoever from crew transcripts, telemetry, or any means whatsoever. If a
so-called fast sep was ever considered, one would think that the pilot or
commander would have uttered "uh-oh" long before it was actually heard. A
fast sep is just plain unsurvivable in first stage. And everyone knows it.

At this point the reviewer started to get writer's cramp and decided to quit
for the night. On to the videotapes.
=========================================

"Explanations are provided for SRB motions and effects."

=========================================