STS51L Accident Questions

"Derek Lyons" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

snip

True, but almost all of the STS 51-L launch photography is inextricably
linked by NASA to the E-207 film and therein lies the issue.

Therein lies the non-issue you mean. No matter how much film you
post, or how much you bray, the basic failure mechanism remains the
same.

Well are you sure? Seriously. Is your mind so closed that even if you were
given clear evidence that NASA made obvious errors in the presentation of
that film, that you would not reconsider that there may be more to the
disaster than we have been told? I am not trying to be difficult Derek,
however, if your mind is made up, it will make it easier for me to address
your posts later.

Daniel

"Charleston" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

True, but almost all of the STS 51-L launch photography is inextricably
linked by NASA to the E-207 film and therein lies the issue.

Therein lies the non-issue you mean. No matter how much film you
post, or how much you bray, the basic failure mechanism remains the
same.

Well are you sure? Seriously. Is your mind so closed that even if you were
given clear evidence that NASA made obvious errors in the presentation of
that film, that you would not reconsider that there may be more to the
disaster than we have been told?

If you have evidence that something other than the o-rings were the
cause of the accident, feel free to present it.

If your theory is (as I understand it) nothing more than the o-ring
leak was somewhat different than as presented in the accident report,
then you aren't really accomplishing anything.

I am not trying to be difficult Derek, however, if your mind is made up, it will
make it easier for me to address your posts later.

You *are* being difficult. You keep posting these films and making
dark hints and handwaving conclusions about NASA conspiracies and
incompetence. If you have a theory[1], lay it out and the evidence
you have supporting it. You've bragged about your scientific
competence before, if it's real it means you know how to present a
case and to support it. Do so.

[1] Of the accident, not handwavings about how NASA missed
'something'. Identify that something precisely in clear language.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Charleston" wrote:

Derek, you should know better. This has been going on for years now and the
Ma*xs*on trolls will never change. Just killfile them and be done with it.


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:09:32 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

Therein lies the non-issue you mean. No matter how much film you
post, or how much you bray, the basic failure mechanism remains the
same.

....Yes. And in his case, it's all genetic.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:23:01 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

You *are* being difficult.

....Difficulty, thy name is M*****.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

"Derek Lyons" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

True, but almost all of the STS 51-L launch photography is inextricably
linked by NASA to the E-207 film and therein lies the issue.

Therein lies the non-issue you mean. No matter how much film you
post, or how much you bray, the basic failure mechanism remains the
same.

Not necessarily true. Your assumption is based on the concept that all film
and video of the STS 51-L accident was honestly presented. Do not
overstate for me what I have expressed here. My posts on this thread are
fairly clear. They are obscured only by smoke on the videos to which I have
referred but which have received scant intelligent commentary.

Well are you sure? Seriously. Is your mind so closed that even if you
were
given clear evidence that NASA made obvious errors in the presentation of
that film, that you would not reconsider that there may be more to the
disaster than we have been told?

If you have evidence that something other than the o-rings were the
cause of the accident, feel free to present it.

You did not answer my question. From your comments on this thread so far,
it would appear your mind is made up.

If your theory is (as I understand it) nothing more than the o-ring
leak was somewhat different than as presented in the accident report,
then you aren't really accomplishing anything.

I have not presented a theory here. I have presented some evidence and
questions.

I am not trying to be difficult Derek, however, if your mind is made up,
it will
make it easier for me to address your posts later.

You *are* being difficult. You keep posting these films and making
dark hints and handwaving conclusions about NASA conspiracies and
incompetence.

Since there was smoke beyond 3.375 seconds after lift-off then where could
it have come from Derek? Whether it is using preliminary evidence instead
of final evidence or just holding back key videos and film from the
Presidential Commission investigating the accident, NASA either made some
serious mistakes or worse. I have brought out new facts and new questions.
It is the evidnece that is difficult not me. I don't have all of the
answers but I do have a lot of questions and a growing list of evidence that
I will present here from time to time whether it is difficult or not.

If you have a theory[1], lay it out and the evidence
you have supporting it.

Let's be clear in our discussion. I don't have to proffer any theory here.
I will proffer some evidence. I have some nagging questions that need
answers. The questions should have been answered by a fair presentation of
all available evidence in 1986. This is a discussion group. Let's discuss
some of those films I took the time to put on my website.

Daniel

Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC
www.challengerdisaster.info

"Charleston" wrote:

They are obscured only by smoke on the videos to which I have
referred but which have received scant intelligent commentary.

The only smoke here is the smoke you are using (in conjunction with
some mirrors) to deflect attention away from your lack of ability to
make a coherent claim.

I asked you to clearly state your theories and evidence, and got
nothing but handwaving and diversions.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 07:33:42 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

I asked you to clearly state your theories and evidence, and got
nothing but handwaving and diversions.

....Which is why, once and for all, the entire family of the former
Lockheed janitor and all his kin should be sent to Killfile Hell and
*left* there. Their theories are complete and utter bull****, founded
on complete and utter lies, misconceptions and fabrications, and they
will *NEVER* provide -ANY- evidence to back up said because it not
only doesn't exist, anything they do happen to provide is fabricated
and/or of such low quality that only a total psychotic would accept it
as valid.

For God/Yahweh/Jehovah/Buddah/Allah/Roddenberry's sake, people
*PLEASE* just killfile them and put them out of our misery.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

"Derek Lyons" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

I asked you to clearly state your theories and evidence, and got
nothing but handwaving and diversions.

Really? I think I was fairly clear in my answer.

Facts:

1. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have expressed an interest in
my genuine offer to share telemetry which I described as "nauseating". I
did not even get a simple question back as to which telemetry I was
referring.

2. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have offered any evidence
that the smoke to which I refer in videos on my website is "stuff" which
"shows up on every Shuttle launch" as suggested by Pat Flannery in the
following quote from an earlier post.

"That stuff coming off the side of the tank, and falling into the area
behind the ET isn't related to the SRB problem, it shows up on every
Shuttle launch; it's either some sort of venting from the ET or frost
falling off of its exterior surface."

Interesting given the 113 launches to date. I have seen some visual
evidence of nominal ET offgassing on numerous flights but only a few flights
remotely resemble the 51-L smoke anomaly post T + 10 seconds. This is
important given that I have yet to see a recovered ET other than 51-L to
determine what if any anomalies existed on those remotely similar flights.
The handwaving therefore is not mine on this issue, it belongs to those
agreeing with Mr. Flannery, like yourself for instance. Put up some similar
video or admit you have no evidence contrary to that which I have presented.
I will even host such video on my website at no charge to anyone but me.

Questions:

1. I repeat my earlier question.

"Seriously. Is your mind so closed that even if you were
given clear evidence that NASA made obvious errors in the presentation of
that film, that you would not reconsider that there may be more to the
disaster than we have been told?"

2. Will you honestly answer one of my questions on my video here?

http://www.challengerdisaster.info/S...20MPEG%20I.mpg

"Is the drogue parachute consumed by the flames?"

I will even help you with your choices here. First let's go back to the PC
Report for some testimony. It was February 13th, 1986, Charles Stevenson
was testifying at KSC. At the time, he was the KSC lead on the photo team
and for that reason he was showing the PC some 70mm motion picture film
using an old projector. It was a closed hearing.

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v4part5.htm#3

(search for the string "471" to get to the right page.)

"MR. STEVENSON: This is the right rocket, and you can see the chute coming
out here, the drogue, and the nose cone is long gone. And here is somewhere,
if I remember correctly - well, we missed that. This is the plume we were
referring to. And of course the nozzle here, the aft skirt, and the aft
booster. The chute blooms, and then is immediately consumed."



So according to Mr. Stevenson, that parachute was consumed right then and
right there at about T + 77-78 seconds; however, a careful check elsewhere
in the report reveals the following in the actual photo team report.



"6. Post Structural Breakup Right SRB Characterization...

....The right SRB exits the cloud at approximately 75.8 seconds MET. The
separated nose cap and deployed drogue parachute are observed at
approximately 76.4 seconds MET. At around 80 seconds MET, a reflection off
of the SRB recovery system remnants (drogue parachute and risers) is
observed (and confirmed by enhancements) on the side of the SRB as shown in
figure 136. This event was initially reported as a possible second anomalous
SRB plume."

Figure 136: http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v3n80.htm (bottom photograph).

Of course that photograph does not show the remnants of an SRB recovery
system; nevertheless, you get the idea--the report uses photography from an
unidentified film to substantiate Mr. Stevenson's testimony. The importance
of the fact that the photograph used to substantiate Mr. Stevenson's
testimony, is the wrong one is yours to decide. You must decide why the
wrong photograph is presented in an official report. Is it an honest
mistake? Was the truth honestly presented? Please, let's discuss this
fairly simple and straightforward issue in a scientific manner. No need to
handwave, let's just see if we can get some facts straight. Thanks.

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston SC











I have received no answer just more of waht you yourself complain
about--handwaving and diversions.

In article 4nuWd.155102$0u.111102@fed1read04,
"Charleston" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

I asked you to clearly state your theories and evidence, and got
nothing but handwaving and diversions.

Really? I think I was fairly clear in my answer.

Facts:

1. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have expressed an interest in
my genuine offer to share telemetry which I described as "nauseating". I
did not even get a simple question back as to which telemetry I was
referring.

Perhaps if you posted excerpts (here directly, or via a link to
something specific on your site) along with an analysis of any
significance (e.g., why it is "nauseating"), you might draw some
serious interest.

2. You, nor anyone else here for that matter, have offered any evidence
that the smoke to which I refer in videos on my website is "stuff" which
"shows up on every Shuttle launch" as suggested by Pat Flannery in the
following quote from an earlier post.

"That stuff coming off the side of the tank, and falling into the area
behind the ET isn't related to the SRB problem, it shows up on every
Shuttle launch; it's either some sort of venting from the ET or frost
falling off of its exterior surface."

Interesting given the 113 launches to date. I have seen some visual
evidence of nominal ET offgassing on numerous flights but only a few flights
remotely resemble the 51-L smoke anomaly post T + 10 seconds.

Have you correlated the visual phenomena with ambient temperature,
pressure and relative humidity? The "smoke" on your video clip looks
a lot more like condensed water vapor (e.g., a contrail forming from
ice shards shed by the ET flash-evaporating and immediately
recondensing/freezing in the cold, dry air that day), than true smoke,
at least to me, especially given the way the rest of the video
appeared to have contrast heightened.

This is
important given that I have yet to see a recovered ET other than 51-L to
determine what if any anomalies existed on those remotely similar flights.

The STS Mission Data and In-Flight Anomalies List (a/k/a the "Green
Book" - I don't have my 1991-version handy for the NASA publication
number) would have detailed descriptions of any anomalies; from that
you could form FOIA requests for post-flight inspection photos and
test data of the ET segments if you found any correlation.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"The loss of the American system of checks and balances is more of a security
danger than any terrorist risk." -- Bruce Schneier
http://dischordia.blogspot.com
http://www.angryherb.net