|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[51-L] Left, Right ... and John Maxson is wrong
A recent post has intimated that the divergence in rates between the left
and right 51-L boosters was a sign that *both* boosters were diverging from the stack. I would like to point out that it is stated several times in the PC Report in testimony that the right SRB diverged from the rest of the stack, and that telemetry from the left SRB and the orbiter (including also telemetry from the payload in the bay) showed the orbiter and the left SRB were tracking together. For further information, see: http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html Additionally, you can see the SRB breach flare sweep around as the SRB breaks loose and rolls about its remaining attachments in the movie from E207 just prior to breakup. It John Maxson has finally "diverged", as he has given up even trying to support his position, or even to make any sense at all. Too bad. I was hoping to see his flight dynamics analysis of how the SRBs separated and how they could have crossed unseen, in light of all of the evidence showing they did not and could not. Jon Berndt Aerospace Engineer -- Opinions expressed here are those of only the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of any other entity, business, or organization. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
[51-L] Left, Right ... and John Maxson is wrong
A recent post has intimated that the divergence in rates between the left
and right 51-L boosters was a sign that *both* boosters were diverging from the stack. I would like to point out that it is stated several times in the PC Report in testimony that the right SRB diverged from the rest of the stack, and that telemetry from the left SRB and the orbiter (including also telemetry from the payload in the bay) showed the orbiter and the left SRB were tracking together. For further information, see: http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html Additionally, you can see the SRB breach flare sweep around as the SRB breaks loose and rolls about its remaining attachments in the movie from E207 just prior to breakup. It John Maxson has finally "diverged", as he has given up even trying to support his position, or even to make any sense at all. Too bad. I was hoping to see his flight dynamics analysis of how the SRBs separated and how they could have crossed unseen, in light of all of the evidence showing they did not and could not. Jon Berndt Aerospace Engineer -- Opinions expressed here are those of only the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of any other entity, business, or organization. Thanks. What is the significance of the boosters crossing? What would it mean if they actually did cross? =========================== Anti-environmental myths http://info-pollution.com/myths.htm Practical skepticism http://info-pollution.com/skeptic.htm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
[51-L] Left, Right ... and John Maxson is wrong
"Jim Norton" wrote in message
Thanks. What is the significance of the boosters crossing? What would it mean if they actually did cross? That's answered he http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html Jon |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
[51-L] Left, Right ... and John Maxson is wrong
"Jon Berndt" wrote:
"Jim Norton" wrote in message Thanks. What is the significance of the boosters crossing? What would it mean if they actually did cross? To be clear and concise: The right damaged booster is seen before and after the explosion as sporting a flare. This is assumed in the ensuing investigation (there's plenty of evidence). If John Maxson's claim was true (and it's not) that the SRBs crossed while unseen in the cloud, then it throws into questions what the flare was that was seen on the "right" booster prior to the explosion, but on the "left" booster *after* the explosion. His hypothesis is that there was no pre-explosion flare, and that the flare seen on the "left" booster was introduced while in the cloud. The upshot is that the previously held belief that the O-ring caused a breach in the right SRB is bogus, because according to John Maxson the right SRB heads off south after the explosion, clean as a whistle. Totally bogus. For more details, please read at: http://home.austin.rr.com/sts51lvideo/ -and- http://www.hal-pc.org/~jsb/conspiracy.html Jon |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
[51-L] Left, Right ... and John Maxson is wrong
"Jim Norton" wrote
snip Thanks. What is the significance of the boosters crossing? What would it mean if they actually did cross? It would mean that NASA failed to perform the most fundamental function of the investigation--performing a proper identification of the boosters and that their premise as to the cause of the accident would be incorrect. After the accident, two sets of parachute(s) were seen floating earthward. NASA did not track them back to the booster(s) from whence they came. That would have been the easiest way to verify which booster was which, because the parachutes and attached items had serial numbers uniquely identifying them. Instead NASA identified them as large and small "chutes". See page 1268 of the Presidential report. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v5p1268b.htm On the paper copy you can read the little blobs on that chart. The little lines that go down and to the right, are the various radar trackings of the parachutes. Along those lines it tells you which radar(s) were tracking the objects. If you look carefully back up the lines to their origins you will note two things. First both parachutes follow the same track to the water for the most part which suggests both parachutes came from the SRB. Second, you will note that the line ends at an ambiguous point where you can not tell which SRB was the origin of the chutes. Interestingly, Metric cameras M-2 and M-3 picked up those parachutes just 35 and 22.5 seconds respectively after range safety destruction of the chutes and yet NASA nor the Air Force used that data to track the chutes back further west to their origin even though it was an easy thing to do. Instead they relied soley on the radars which did not pick up either chute for several minutes according to the Air Force. When I received copies of the videotapes for both M-2 and M-3 from NASA using the FOIA, I was surprised to see that indeed both parachutes clearly came from the same SRB as they are visible in the same frame. Shortly thereafter the small chute pulls away from the larger one as the larger one fully deploys thus dramatically slowing it down. You know there are all of about three seconds of that M camera footage among all of the videotapes in the Presidential Commission library and that footage is of the shuttle break-up not of the parachutes. Oh well. Oh and it would also mean that collectively NASA could not tell their right form their left. -- Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
[51-L] Left, Right ... and John Maxson is wrong
Oops in a hurry see corrections below. ***correction***
"Charleston" wrote in message news:IQF7b.50818$cj1.49913@fed1read06... "Jim Norton" wrote snip Thanks. What is the significance of the boosters crossing? What would it mean if they actually did cross? It would mean that NASA failed to perform the most fundamental function of the investigation--performing a proper identification of the boosters and that their premise as to the cause of the accident would be incorrect. After the accident, two sets of parachute(s) were seen floating earthward. NASA did not track them back to the booster(s) from whence they came. That would have been the easiest way to verify which booster was which, because the parachutes and attached items had serial numbers uniquely identifying them. Instead NASA identified them as large and small "chutes". See page 1268 of the Presidential report. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v5p1268b.htm On the paper copy you can read the little blobs on that chart. The little lines that go down and to the right, are the various radar trackings of the parachutes. Along those lines it tells you which radar(s) were tracking the objects. If you look carefully back up the lines to their origins you will note two things. First both parachutes follow the same track to the water for the most part which suggests both parachutes came from the ***same*** SRB. Second, you will note that the line ends at an ambiguous point where you can not tell which SRB was the origin of the chutes. Interestingly, Metric cameras M-2 and M-3 picked up those parachutes just 35 and 22.5 seconds respectively after range safety destruction of the ***SRBs*** and yet NASA nor the Air Force used that data to track the chutes back further west to their origin even though it was an easy thing to do. Instead they relied ****** on the radars which did not pick up either chute for several minutes according to the Air Force. When I received copies of the videotapes for both M-2 and M-3 from NASA using the FOIA, I was surprised to see that indeed both parachutes clearly came from the same SRB as they are visible in the same frame. Shortly thereafter the small chute pulls away from the larger one as the larger one fully deploys thus dramatically slowing it down. You know there are all of about three seconds of that M ***series*** camera footage among all of the videotapes in the Presidential Commission library and that footage is of the shuttle break-up not of the parachutes. Oh well. Oh and it would also mean that collectively NASA could not tell their right form their left. -- Daniel Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
[51-L] Left, Right ... and John Maxson is wrong
"Jim Norton" wrote in message
http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html Note that I recalled this message and resent it with a correction. The link is http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf Jon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
[51-L] Left, Right ... and John Maxson is wrong
"Jon Berndt" wrote:
"Jim Norton" wrote in message Thanks. What is the significance of the boosters crossing? What would it mean if they actually did cross? That's answered he http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.html Jon And darn if I didn't do it again here. The correct link is: http://home.houston.rr.com/fancijon/conspiracy.pdf Jon |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
[51-L] Left, Right ... and John Maxson is wrong
In article IQF7b.50818$cj1.49913@fed1read06,
"Charleston" wrote: ....You know, it's bad enough that his entire family is a bunch of lying ****heads, but at least Danny could learn to spell "charlatan" correctly. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
[51-L] Left, Right ... and John Maxson is wrong
"Charleston"
It would mean that NASA failed to perform the most fundamental function of the investigation--performing a proper identification of the or perhaps more plausibly: When the SRBs emerge from the cloud, there is a momentary optical illusion that the SRBs cross. The illusion is created by the fact that the plume of the right SRB is *below* the plume of the left SRB, causing the eye to momentarily regard the lower plume as being nearer to the observer. The right SRB then continues to the North, away from the viewer, completing the "crossing" illusion. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|