|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
You-Know-Who-Jr babbled:
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". ....That's because nobody wants to see your father's kiddie porn. Nobody normal, that is. Again, kids, please. Just killfile every M***** and put them out of our misery. Don't waste your time on them. 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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote: 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. The data would not fit here well and any subsequent posts would make it become difficult to read. I will post the raw "as received" STS 51-L SRB chamber pressure data in its entirety on my website www.challengerdisaster.info tonight. Any serious comments would be appreciated. I am willing to discuss my concerns about that data and why I find it "nauseating" as long as anyone wants to discuss it in a serious manner. 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? No, nor did NASA during its investigation into the disaster. 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. I suppose one should ask him or herself what the smoke is supposed to look like after the initial o-ring leak? At what point does that black smoke leaking from a dynamically vibrating joint, transition from the products of incomplete rubber o-ring combustion, to the pressurized SRB propellant gases and fire. I believe the o-rings and associated grease and putty have a very short/finite life expectancy when exposed to 5,900 degree Fahrenheit temperatures at 950 pounds per square inch pressure (1 atmospehere). One might also ask how NASA film experts ascertained (if they even did so) when the o-ring combustion was finished so that any subsequent SRB joint leakage could be properly identified as a leak of the bright SRB gases, smoke, and eventually fire, everyone normally sees during a launch (out of the nozzles of course). Again, exactly how long does one look for black smoke? Where is this discussed in any engineering detail in the PC report? It is not enough IMHO to state the joint was likely clogged with a chunk of putty and then ignore or kiss off as vapor what we can see on M-2 and M-3--withholding M-2 and M-3 from the Presidential Commission entirely, and from the public until I made a FOIA request BTW. 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. The PC report discussed these issues in some detail on flights prior to STS 51-L except for STS 51-J. The ASAP annual reports have discussed various potential SRB leak and pressure deviation issues since STS 51-L (mostly associated with the nozzles). The ET of course is not recovered and that was my point. Other than STS 51-L (partial recovery), an ET has never been recovered and only a few have ever been photographed. None of that photography was at a resolution that would detect small tank leaks which leaves leak detection up to hydrogen depletion sensors coupled with ullage pressure deviations. -- Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston SC |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"OM" om@our_blessed_lazy_ass_of_the OM God_holy ****_research_facility.org
wrote: 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". ...That's because nobody wants to see your father's kiddie porn. Nobody normal, that is. Which would rule you out of course. Daniel |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Charleston wrote:
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote: "Charleston" wrote: 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. The data would not fit here well and any subsequent posts would make it become difficult to read. I will post the raw "as received" STS 51-L SRB chamber pressure data in its entirety on my website www.challengerdisaster.info tonight. I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing the ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it should be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret it. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Lowther" wrote:
Charleston wrote: The data would not fit here well and any subsequent posts would make it become difficult to read. I will post the raw "as received" STS 51-L SRB chamber pressure data in its entirety on my website www.challengerdisaster.info tonight. I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing the ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it should be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret it. Great. It is now posted. Of course I look forward to your insight as well. www.challengerdisaster.info Daniel |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Lowther wrote: I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing the ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it should be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret it. Did they fix those bolt catchers? That was a major accident waiting to happen. Pat |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Flannery wrote:
Scott Lowther wrote: I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing the ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it should be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret it. Did they fix those bolt catchers? Couldn't tell ta... that was on the ET side. I *believe* they did so, however. I couldn't get anyone at UTC to take my idea seriously of putting GPS guided booster rockets on the bolts, and have them, blast away after severance... sigh... |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Charleston wrote:
"Scott Lowther" wrote: Charleston wrote: The data would not fit here well and any subsequent posts would make it become difficult to read. I will post the raw "as received" STS 51-L SRB chamber pressure data in its entirety on my website www.challengerdisaster.info tonight. I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing the ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it should be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret it. Great. It is now posted. Of course I look forward to your insight as well. At first glance, after converting the date and time into something Excel can use and restting T0 to be ignition, the pressure dats looks pretty normal up until 59 seconds or so, when the right-hand transducers all show a decrease in chamber pressure compared to the left handers. Not overly surprising given that there was a hole in the side of the booster, and total port area was increased. I can compare this data to recent RSRM motor firings no sweat, but performance has changed a little since 86. But to first order the overall pressure trace up until T+59 seconds looks about right. Neither the spread in readigns from Xducer to Xducer not the very jagged appearance of the data are unusual. The data rate from the Xducers is achingly slow to this date |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Lowther wrote: Did they fix those bolt catchers? Couldn't tell ta... that was on the ET side. I *believe* they did so, however. I checked, they fixed them: http://www.dancewithshadows.com/tech...ery-launch.asp "March 3, 2005 Space Shuttle Discovery: External tank mated to rocket boosters NASA marked a major step in assembling Space Shuttle Discovery for its Return to Flight mission, as workers successfully mated the redesigned External Tank and twin Solid Rocket Boosters. The fuel tank and booster rockets will help launch Space Shuttle Discovery. The External Tank was lifted by a giant crane and joined to the already stacked boosters in the 52-story Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The external tank is the largest element of the Space Shuttle system, which also includes the orbiter, main engines and rocket boosters. It measures 27.6 feet wide and 154 feet tall. Despite the tank's size, the aluminum skin covering it is only one eighth of an inch thick in most areas. Yet it still withstands more than 6.5 million pounds of thrust during liftoff and ascent. The tank is the only Shuttle component that cannot be reused. Following integration and final checkout of the tank with the Solid Rocket Boosters, Discovery will join its propulsion components in the Vehicle Assembly Building. Discovery will roll over from the Orbiter Processing Facility later this month, marking the end of Return to Flight processing. The orbiter will be attached to the stack in the Vehicle Assembly Building . The external tank will fly with several modifications. They include two new forward bipod heaters at the forward attach fittings that connect the tank to the orbiter. NASA and Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. spent nearly two years modifying the tank to make it safer. During the tank-booster mating, the left and right boosters are bolted to the tank at both the top and tail ends. At the forward end, a vertical bolt mechanism attaches each booster to the tank. After the Space Shuttle Discovery launch, approximately two minutes after lift-off, the boosters will separate from the external tank, when pyrotechnic devices fire to break the 25-inch, 62-pound steel bolts. One half of the bolt is caught in canister-like bolt catchers located on the tank; the other half remains with the boosters. Discovery will be the first flight with a modified bolt catcher. It was upgraded from a two-piece welded design to a one-piece, machine-made design. By eliminating the weld, the new bolt catcher is structurally stronger than the original. Prior to Discovery joining the stack, final closeouts on the external tank will include attaching the new bolt catcher and electrical cable connections. An aerodynamic fairing and the bi-pod struts, the attach points for the nose of the orbiter to the tank, will also be installed." God knows how many times they dodged the bullet with those things; if a piece of urethane foam can fatally damage the TPS, I'd hate to think what a 30 pound piece of steel would do. I couldn't get anyone at UTC to take my idea seriously of putting GPS guided booster rockets on the bolts, and have them, blast away after severance... sigh... Theoretically they are supposed to stay attached to the vehicle, and not fall off at all- I still shake my head when they found out that they were coming free, and the Cape radar operators finally found out what those odd things were that were showing up on radar when the SRBs separated. You would have thought they would have mentioned that to someone earlier on. :-\ Pat |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Lowther" wrote:
Charleston wrote: "Scott Lowther" wrote: Charleston wrote: The data would not fit here well and any subsequent posts would make it become difficult to read. I will post the raw "as received" STS 51-L SRB chamber pressure data in its entirety on my website www.challengerdisaster.info tonight. I will look forward to that. Since I'll be responsible for analyzing the ballistics of the two SRB's from the forthcoming launch in May, it should be interesting to see what you have... and how you interpret it. Great. It is now posted. Of course I look forward to your insight as well. At first glance, after converting the date and time into something Excel can use and restting T0 to be ignition, the pressure dats looks pretty normal up until 59 seconds or so, when the right-hand transducers all show a decrease in chamber pressure compared to the left handers. Not overly surprising given that there was a hole in the side of the booster, and total port area was increased. I put the data up as I received it, adjusting the headers slightly for clarity, so that anyone familiar with same would recognize that I have presented it the way NASA first saw it 19 years ago. I too, have set it up in an Excel spreadsheet to examine it in a number of meaningful ways. From your read of the data what is the data rate for xducers 1302 and 2302? How about the other two sets of xducers? They do have data rates IIRC. I can compare this data to recent RSRM motor firings no sweat, but performance has changed a little since 86. By all means please do. But to first order the overall pressure trace up until T+59 seconds looks about right. Following the redesign of the SRBs a higher thrust differential between the two boosters was allowed. The data I posted reflects rather sensitive instrumentation with three significant figures right? Given the resolution of the xducers at 1/1000 of a PSI, what do you suppose the actual accuracy is in PSI? Don't bother looking in the PC report, you will not find it anywhere in any of the five volumes. We can come back to the 59 second issue later. It might be helpful. Neither the spread in readigns from Xducer to Xducer not the very jagged appearance of the data are unusual. Not back then, I must agree. Does that make it okay during steady state burn? Today I sort of doubt you have those spreads between the xducers. They have been under configuration control *since* STS 51-L. NASA is aware of some relatively small perturbations in the pressure from reading to reading, sure. The data rate from the Xducers is achingly slow to this date Quality high rate data is three things: 1. Expensive 2. Heavy 3. Processor intensive Nevertheless, if one is going to stake a report on data like that to which I have referred, it should be honestly presented, accurate within a tolerance that makes the data truly relevant, and it should mate with applicable photographic and related data measurements. Now one more thing, looking at the data, what interpretive value would you place on it during the first second following T= 0? Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston SC www.challengerdisaster.info |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident | Jim Oberg | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 13th 04 04:58 PM |
Lessons Learned but Forgotten from the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident | Jim Oberg | History | 0 | December 13th 04 04:58 PM |
"Hindsight bias" could hide real lessons of Columbia accident report,expert says (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 3rd 03 01:54 AM |
NASA Administrator Accepts Columbia Accident Report | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 3 | August 27th 03 04:48 PM |
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Releases Final Report | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 26th 03 03:30 PM |