Challenger Salvage Chief Conceded Fireball Crossing

In late October 1987, AF Col. Ed O'Connor (who directed the
51-L debris recovery) confirmed an in-cloud booster crossing.

===========================================
DANIEL MAXSON: Do the SRBs -- or did they -- cross in
the clouds?
COL. ED O'CONNOR: Ya, the feeling is they did. What
happened is when the aft fixture failed, that SRB rotated out.
So that's why the thrust would force it to *cross* -- after the
*forward* section failed -- cross the path of the other which
was still *attached*!
DANIEL MAXSON: Ya but -- but they were held *together*.
I was told by a NASA expert the SRBs were held together by a
big *ring* of the thrust structure of the external tank. Otherwise
they would have immediately exited the cloud. And that they
went maybe a half-second held together by some kind of an ET
*ring* frame.
COL. ED O'CONNOR: Well, there's *two* things that holds it
together. At the *rear* there's a heavy ring for attachment, and
that's where the *failure* occurred, heating one of those struts
that holds them together and then *ripping* the rest of it out. In
the *top* structure, there's a thrust *beam* that goes through
the intertank area. There's some *ancillary* stuff there. The
forward *held* for a little bit.
DANIEL MAXSON: And it allowed them to cross.
COL. ED O'CONNOR: Ya.
DANIEL MAXSON: Okay.
===========================================

[Given probable cause, a federal judge can order an 'in camera'
inspection of classified (in this case SENSITIVE) film data.]

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

A little birdie told me about this:

"John Maxson" wrote in message

In late October 1987, AF Col. Ed O'Connor (who directed the
51-L debris recovery) confirmed an in-cloud booster crossing.

COL. ED O'CONNOR: Ya, the feeling is they did. What

"the *feeling* is they did."

Wow. What a ringing endorsement from the salvage chief.

happened is when the aft fixture failed, that SRB rotated out.

But, *you* wrote that the left SRB tail dropped - due to gravity as you
described. He says they went "out". If they went out, how would they have
rolled the vehicle?

COL. ED O'CONNOR: Well, there's *two* things that holds it
together. At the *rear* there's a heavy ring for attachment, and
that's where the *failure* occurred, heating one of those struts
that holds them together and then *ripping* the rest of it out.

So ... what was it that "heated" the strut to the point where it failed? An
SRB breech, perhaps? Yes, and we can see the plume from that "blowtorch"
that failed the strut, as he says. Gee, where did that plume go to?

Yet another selective use of a misintepreted quote by an authority who may
be stepping out of his area of expertise.

What's next John? I can see it now:

"Titusville Piggly Wiggly Head Cashier admits RCS firings on ascent."
"KSC's Cafeteria Master Chef Breaks Silence, Reveals He Cooked up O-Ring
Idea."

I should learn not to read news and eat at the same time. Thanks for a touch
of the absurd that appeals to my sense of humour, and apologies if it was
in bad taste considering the incidents involved.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/03

What you and Lockheed intend to do, Berndt, is attempt
to discredit *any* authority who argues or witnesses in
*any* way against Rogers' O-ring decree.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

Yet another selective use of a misintepreted quote by an
authority who may be stepping out of his area of expertise.

"John Maxson" wrote in message

What you and Lockheed intend to do, Berndt, is attempt
to discredit *any* authority who argues or witnesses in
*any* way against Rogers' O-ring decree.

As you know, I speak for myself alone. I don't intend to discredit anyone.
You've discredited yourself. As for your hypothesis, it's also already been
discredited, ad nausuem.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message

I should learn not to read news and eat at the same time. Thanks for a
touch
of the absurd that appeals to my sense of humour, and apologies if it was
in bad taste considering the incidents involved.

Brian

There is, of course, no humor in the accident, but there periodically is in
watching John Maxson's quest for legitimacy and vindication for his
hypotheses*.

Note: My use of hypothesis comes from Marriam Webster (www.m-w.com):

HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative
explanation a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs.
THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth
the theory of evolution.
LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found
to be invariable under the same conditions the law of gravitation.

Jon

-- of course I speak only for myself.

Jon Berndt wrote in message
...
"John Maxson" wrote in message

What you and Lockheed intend to do, Berndt, is attempt
to discredit *any* authority who argues or witnesses in
*any* way against Rogers' O-ring decree.

As you know, I speak for myself alone. I don't intend to
discredit anyone.

Nevertheless, the world knows that you just *did* -- *again*!
I repeat, with no uneasiness whatsoever, that you are a liar.

You clearly are as badly burnt to a crisp and as out of whack
in your unfounded allegations as your highly-touted but plainly
worthless efforts to kill-file yourself from the engineering truth.

You are as blind as a bat; you are battier than a bat, and like a
bat, you fly off haphazardly at night looking for bugs to convert
to hermetically-sealed guana (like the bugs in your sim programs).

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

On or about Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:48:31 -0500, Jon Berndt
made the sensational claim that:
What's next John? I can see it now:

"Titusville Piggly Wiggly Head Cashier admits RCS firings on ascent."

Titusville doesn't have a Piggly Wiggly. Not that that would stop Maxson
from making the statement anyhow.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

If you had no need for your quest for legitimacy, you
could have pointed to a NASA disproof of the fireball
crossing in January 2001 (or in January 1986 or 1987).

You could not then, and you cannot now. You (like Dan)
must constantly resort to admonitions of "stay tuned,"
even in the face of facts conclusively proving you both
(like NASA and Lockheed) to be 51-L frauds.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


Jon Berndt wrote in message
...

There is, of course, no humor in the accident, but there
periodically is in watching John Maxson's quest for
legitimacy and vindication for his hypotheses*.

"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:y7wTa.6332

What's next John? I can see it now:

"Titusville Piggly Wiggly Head Cashier admits RCS firings on ascent."

Titusville doesn't have a Piggly Wiggly. Not that that would stop Maxson
from making the statement anyhow.

It actually might make it _more_ likely - you couldn't trace it.