Booster Crossing

"Roger Balettie" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

Good shot but try again.

Daniel -- if you have the data, present the data... stop playing guessing
games.

"Teasing" with it only serves to make you look bad, frustrate everyone
else,
and make your argument less worthy.

I went to some trouble to figure out the game which was NASA's not mine.
Why is it so hard to take a fresh look at the data and respond? Even if you
don't get it right now, it is often more rewarding to go try first IMO.
Perhaps you will appreciate my work a little more, not less that way. Who
knows? If I had not posed the question that you do not appreciate, would
you have noticed the inconsistency Jon has already pointed out for everyone?

I mentioned in an earlier post that:

"Importantly, the friend of a routine and well respected poster here can
corroborate the unmatched SRB pair issue independently from me."

Roger you are that poster and your "friend", Jay Greene, can corroborate the
"unmatched SRB pair" allegation of mine. He signed a report that discusses
the issue. Will you help the group by verifying this important issue? It
is not classified.

I, for one, would very much like to see what you have that you believe is
so
critically important, so we can discuss it as rational adults. As before,
I
appreciated your posting the "Castglance" video, as it did not have the
conclusive evidence to which it had been attributed.

Castglance gave us a good but inconclusive look at how people thought and
spoke after the accident. Everyone hoped the orbiter had somehow made it
out of the cloud and an RTLS was possible, if not in progress.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

Charleston wrote
in message news:0Bf7b.46702$cj1.5079@fed1read06...

I am sorry if I was unclear about the timeline and the SRB
chamber pressures.

Anyone interested should have had no trouble locating Lee's
timeline (http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v4p504.htm).

Lee was not reviewing thrust mismatch due to grain differences
between the L-aft-center and R-aft center segments for *any*
time, particularly ignition (when the black smoke begins).

He was comparing *only* R-SRB Pc to its past-performance
statistics, essentially giving us a red herring:

"At about 5 to 9 seconds, we did see a slightly high
performance on the right hand solid rocket motor.
This was well within our experience base, and we don't
indicate that as an anomaly, but because it changed,
shifted our Shuttle main engine thrust bucket, where we
go from 100 to 104 percent down to 65 percent and back
up to 104 percent again, it shifted it slightly, so we went
from 104 to 94 because of this higher performance here,
which is still well within our experience base."

To establish your issue, it would have been necessary for Lee
to have shown early performance for the *left* SRB as well
(relative to "main engine throttling"), and to have compared
*both* to past-performance statistics. If you think you're going
to get anyone in this group but me to admit that, I think you're
whistling Dixie. This isn't a rerun of a Columbo episode.

Look at Balettie. He's stonewalling the greater significance
of the Castglance video, and you're *going along* with him!

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

To my knowledge, Jay Greene was not one of the four who
approved (by signature) the report proper. (I believe I listed
those four in an earlier post.) Jay Greene merely signed his
own input-page to the report, which doesn't guarantee his
knowledge of your issue (although one would expect him to
be familiar with the entire report).

If I understand your issue, it applies to 51-L. Does the report
make lucid mention of an unmatched pair on 51-L?

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



Charleston wrote
in message news:9hl7b.48139$cj1.3932@fed1read06...

Roger you are that poster and your "friend", Jay Greene,
can corroborate the "unmatched SRB pair" allegation of
mine. He signed a report that discusses the issue.

"John Maxson" wrote:

To my knowledge, Jay Greene was not one of the four who
approved (by signature) the report proper. (I believe I listed
those four in an earlier post.)

The day after the accident, it was Jay Greene who was thrust into the
limelight of the Challenger disaster, not the "managers." Jay Greene spoke
because he was "Flight."


Jay Greene merely signed his
own input-page to the report, which doesn't guarantee his
knowledge of your issue (although one would expect him to
be familiar with the entire report).

Mr. Greene sat where? In what chair? With what responsibility?

Why don't you give Roger a chance to politely contact Jay Greene and get the
answer straight from the Flight Director's mouth? Herb has bugged me silly
to put up or shut up. I can now get an accepted poster to vouch for me with
a simple phone call or e-mail to an old friend.

If I understand your issue, it applies to 51-L. Does the report
make lucid mention of an unmatched pair on 51-L?

Absolutely positively yes.

Daniel

How does Dixie go?

:-)

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...
Charleston wrote
in message news:0Bf7b.46702$cj1.5079@fed1read06...

I am sorry if I was unclear about the timeline and the SRB
chamber pressures.

Anyone interested should have had no trouble locating Lee's
timeline (http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v4p504.htm).

Lee was not reviewing thrust mismatch due to grain differences
between the L-aft-center and R-aft center segments for *any*
time, particularly ignition (when the black smoke begins).

He was comparing *only* R-SRB Pc to its past-performance
statistics, essentially giving us a red herring:

"At about 5 to 9 seconds, we did see a slightly high
performance on the right hand solid rocket motor.
This was well within our experience base, and we don't
indicate that as an anomaly, but because it changed,
shifted our Shuttle main engine thrust bucket, where we
go from 100 to 104 percent down to 65 percent and back
up to 104 percent again, it shifted it slightly, so we went
from 104 to 94 because of this higher performance here,
which is still well within our experience base."

To establish your issue, it would have been necessary for Lee
to have shown early performance for the *left* SRB as well
(relative to "main engine throttling"), and to have compared
*both* to past-performance statistics. If you think you're going
to get anyone in this group but me to admit that, I think you're
whistling Dixie. This isn't a rerun of a Columbo episode.

Look at Balettie. He's stonewalling the greater significance
of the Castglance video, and you're *going along* with him!

You asked that it be posted. Next up Starcast?

Daniel

Charleston wrote
in message newsNu7b.50474$cj1.5730@fed1read06...

Next up Starcast?

You could go with photos of yourself with your wife and
kids, or with Paul and your mother; or you could wait a
couple of years and get the grandkids in. Family portraits
seem to be the in thing for sprucing up web pages.

Signed, the Born Loser

"John Maxson" wrote in message
...

Signed, the Born Loser

Only when you fail to trust others.

--

Daniel
Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC

Tell the crews of Challenger and Columbia.

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


Charleston wrote in message
news:EQy7b.50713$cj1.27706@fed1read06...

Only when you fail to trust others.

"Charleston" wrote:
"Roger Balettie" wrote:
"Charleston" wrote:

Good shot but try again.

Daniel -- if you have the data, present the data... stop playing
guessing
games.

"Teasing" with it only serves to make you look bad, frustrate everyone
else,
and make your argument less worthy.

I went to some trouble to figure out the game which was NASA's not mine.
Why is it so hard to take a fresh look at the data and respond?

It's the attitude, Daniel... the "I have something you don't have... nyah
nyah!" presentation bothers me.

If I have something to present, I do. If I have a statement to make, I do.
If I have an opinion to give, I'll mark it as such.

One thing I *don't* do is state that I have evidence that I believe supports
my statements but then not provide said evidence to the people who disagree
with me. If I'm trying to convince someone of my point, I'll direct them to
the evidence that supports my point, not withhold such evidence and tell the
other parties to "go get it yourself". All that would do is make it look
like I'm trying to hide something or that I'm not as confident of either my
position or my evidence as I could/should be.

Does that help explain my position better?

Perhaps you will appreciate my work a little more, not less that way.

I've already thanked you for the time and effort you put into providing the
"Castglance" video. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to review and
discuss the communications on that video and put some real-time perspective
onto the speculative conversations taking place among the crew.

I'll continue to thank you for any other information you provide that you
believe supports your point.

I mentioned in an earlier post that:

"Importantly, the friend of a routine and well respected poster here can
corroborate the unmatched SRB pair issue independently from me."

Roger you are that poster and your "friend", Jay Greene, can corroborate
the
"unmatched SRB pair" allegation of mine. He signed a report that
discusses
the issue. Will you help the group by verifying this important issue? It
is not classified.

I don't ever recall claiming Mr. Greene was a "friend" of mine. I've only
met him a few times (gave a couple of presentations before him and Gene
Kranz). Even though he's a "former FDO" as well, he was the STS-51L Ascent
Flight Director, not the FDO. He had departed from the FDO shop before I
got there.

I, for one, would very much like to see what you have that you believe
is
so
critically important, so we can discuss it as rational adults. As
before,
I
appreciated your posting the "Castglance" video, as it did not have the
conclusive evidence to which it had been attributed.

Castglance gave us a good but inconclusive look at how people thought and
spoke after the accident. Everyone hoped the orbiter had somehow made it
out of the cloud and an RTLS was possible, if not in progress.

For what it's worth, Daniel -- I agree with your two sentences above. The
"Castglance" video is, indeed, an interesting look/listen into the reactions
of the crew and their hopes for an RTLS after the Accident.

I think anyone associated with the Shuttle program, or anyone who knew about
RTLS capability, was hoping to see Challenger fly out of the conflagration
cloud and return to KSC safely. Those wishes and speculative statements,
though, do not make things happen.

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

"Charleston" wrote:
You asked that it be posted. Next up Starcast?

Yes, please.

Thank you in advance,
Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/